Understanding the meaning of uncertainty in geography education: a systematic review

ABSTRACT

In the field of geography education, the term uncertainty is present yet varies in its definition and conceptualisation. This paper presents an overview of definitions and concepts of uncertainty in geography education, where the term is used in different contexts. This overview is especially important for geography teachers and scientists because their understanding is intrinsically linked to their teaching and research. For this purpose, a systematic literature review was conducted. The selected publications (n = 63) were all published in the English language and analysed using qualitative content analysis. It was evident from most of the publications that no explicit definition of the term uncertainty exists; however, there are references to definitions from other authors as well as implicit definitions and specifications of the term (e.g. scientific uncertainty). The term uncertainty can be defined and conceptualised differently using science-oriented, knowledge-oriented, action-oriented, and decision-oriented approaches, together with references to different categories, such as actor groups or the temporal dimension. Each of these categories is addressed in this systematic literature review.

KEYWORDS:

• Uncertainty
• geography education
• systematic literature review
• qualitative content analysis

Introduction

Uncertainty, which pertains to one of the adjectives in the term VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous) world, is increasingly becoming the focus of education and science (Unger, 2019). It is a phenomenon that occurs theoretically and practically in different fields in educational science and has increasingly moved to the centre of scientific and public discourse since the second modern era in the 1970s, when unambiguities, knowledge, and certainties were replaced by ambiguities, nescience, uncertainties, and risk. From different perspectives, there is consensus (Paseka et al., 2018) that uncertainty is a constitutive part of educational thinking and acting and of professional pedagogical practice (Böing, 2016). In practice, uncertainty occurs in every teaching situation from the individual and interactional perspectives, for example, by not knowing the thoughts on the students’ minds during teaching, which learning processes are taking place, and how students will react to the teachers’ actions (Floden & Clark, 1988; Melville & Pilot, 2014; Paseka et al., 2018).

In the context of geography, uncertainty is discussed from a disciplinary perspective in theory and practice and represents a constitutive, inherent characteristic of science (Janich & Rhein, 2018). Major knowledge authorities, such as the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), are increasingly explaining uncertainties in detail in their reports. Uncertainty is thematised in relation to the scientific work of geographers (Fusco et al., 2017) and in connection to knowledge, for example, climatological knowledge as part of geography (IPCC, 2021, 2022). The media coverage of scientific uncertainties, on the one hand, and of consensus, on the other hand, is increasing, although varied, and has an impact on media consumers understanding (Collins & Nerlich, 2016; Schmid-Petri & Arlt, 2016; Stecula & Merkley, 2019).

Regarding geography education, as it is the interface of education and geography, the understanding of uncertainties is relevant because it appears in both disciplines in different ways. Especially for geography teachers and scientists, it is important to understand how uncertainty matters to them and which definitions and conceptualisations of ideas are used, because different interpretations are prevalent and the understanding of geography teachers is intrinsically linked to their teaching and research. However, the inconsistent use of uncertainty-related terms in geography education raises questions about how uncertainty matters in the field. The guiding aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the use and understanding of the term uncertainty in geography education. This perspective prompts the following research question: How is uncertainty defined and conceptualised from the perspective of geography education? As such, we examined the definitions and different uses of the term in different contexts. For this purpose, we conducted a systematic literature review, which is becoming more and more common in geography education and related fields due to the increasing number of publications (e.g. Lane & Bourke, 2019; Puttick & Talks, 2022). In addition to geography education, we included related concepts [i.e. education for sustainable development (ESD) and global citizenship education (GCED)] in the fields of our review, since geography education is dedicated to the guiding principles of ESD and GCED, and these areas are becoming more and more important in (geography) school curricula or as cross-curricular themes (GermanGeographySociety, 2014).

Materials and methods

To achieve a comprehensive and thorough overview of related literature, we conducted a systematic literature review and reported the results following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Moher et al., 2009). Systematic literature reviews are aimed at achieving the quality criteria of transparency, objectivity, and replicability by basing the process on a clearly defined research question and following a well-structured and well-documented search protocol (Figure 1) as well as clearly defined selection criteria that determine which studies to include in the review (Boland et al., 2017; Gough & Thomas, 2016; Petticrew & Roberts, 2008).

Figure 1. Overview of the systematic search process based on the PRISMA statement guidelines (Moher et al., 2009).

Data collection

The literature search took place in November 2021. As the search was for the definitions and concepts of uncertainty in the field of geography education, including in the related fields of ESD and GCED, the following search terms were selected in an iterative process, used, and linked with the operator ‘and’ in each case:

Table

Uncertainty

and

geography education *OR* geography lesson *OR* climate change education *OR* sustainable development education *OR* global citizenship education

The term uncertainty was focused on due to its common use in different contexts. The terms contingency (Gray et al., 2010), complexity, ambiguity (Tauritz, 2012), and risk (Dahlbeck, 2014) were considered associated terms because they are related to the concept of uncertainty in terms of content and semantics and frequently occur in one or more denominations in publications. To contextualise these search terms, we also conducted a contextual analysis, but its focus was uncertainty.

The databases—Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), Fachinformations-System Bildung (FIS-Education), and Web of Science—were searched without the use of filtering functions, such as a timeframe, to achieve a holistic overview of definitions and concepts. The search was based on titles, abstracts, and keywords. The review protocol is available and can be requested from the authors.

From the results of this initial literature search (n = 1,564), duplicates (n = 647) were deleted. The remaining 917 records were screened, using their titles and abstracts, according to the following inclusion criteria:

• Independent of their place of publication,

• Independent of their year of publication,

• available in English,

• empirical as well as theoretical or conceptual,

• thematically focus on learning or teaching,

• domain-specific to geography, ESD, or GCED,

• related to school or higher education, and

• published in peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed journals or as project reports.

Based on these criteria, 63 publications were considered suitable for further analysis (Figure 1), so their full-text versions were downloaded.

Data analysis

The 63 publications were subjected to a qualitative (structuring) content analysis, following Mayring (2014). Each publication was perused to determine which terms related to uncertainty were used. The identified terms were counted using frequency analysis. The context in which each of the terms occurred served as the unit of analysis in the further content analysis.

Categories for the analysis were iteratively developed deductively (Appendix 1) and inductively (Appendix 2). The following main categories were used: type of paper (theoretical versus empirical), type of definition of uncertainty (e.g. explicit), discipline-related context of uncertainty (geographic subject versus education), actor group (e.g. students), temporal dimension (e.g. future), ways of dealing with uncertainty (e.g. avoidance), and associated terms (e.g. complexity). All the main categories and subcategories are presented in Table 2 (see chapter results).

Table 1. Overview of the specified terms.

Specification of the term uncertainty	Publications (author & year)	Number of publications
Scientific uncertainty	Adams (2001), Busch and Osborne (2014), Henderson etal. (1993), Labosier and Fay (2019), Mortensen (1996), Pallant and Lee (2015), Román and Busch (2016), Summers and Childs (2007), Mortensen (1996), Román and Busch (2016), Ruggeri (2011), Summers and Childs (2007)	12
Structural uncertainty	Colucci-Gray et al. (2013), Labosier and Fay (2019), Ruggeri (2011), Schauss and Sprenger (2021)	4
Ontological uncertainty	Davidson et al. (2021); Pawson (2015), Ruggeri (2011)	3
Epistemological uncertainty	Pawson (2015), Ruggeri (2011)	2
Knowledge uncertainty	Tauritz (2012), Tauritz (2019)	2
Personal uncertainty	Pallant and Lee (2015), Pawson (2015)	2
Student uncertainty	Schauss and Sprenger (2021), Tonts (2011)	2
Value uncertainty	Ruggeri (2011), Schauss and Sprenger (2021)	2
Climate change uncertainty	Schauss and Sprenger (2021)	1
Confident uncertainty	Lambert (2002)	1
Disciplinary uncertainty	Schauss and Sprenger (2021)	1
Environmental uncertainty	Crossley (2019)	1
Global uncertainty	Crossley (2019)	1
Positive uncertainty	Tauritz (2012)	1
Subjective uncertainty	Ruggeri (2011)	1
Teacher uncertainty	Melville and Pilot (2014)	1

Table 2. Results of the frequency analysis.

Main category	Subcategory	Number of publications (n = 63)
Type of publication	Theoretical/conceptual	30
	Empirical	33
Type of definition of uncertainty	Explicit definition	3
	Reference to other sources	3
	Implicit definition	42
	No definition	15
Discipline-related references to uncertainty	Geographic subject	47
	Education	27
Actor group	Scientists	9
	Students	37
	Teachers	21
	Society	6
	Non-specified	14
Temporal dimension	Past	2
	Present	11
	Future	26
	Non-specified	33
Ways of dealing with uncertainty	Recognition	7
	Coping	29
	Use	8
	Avoidance	3
	Non-specified	26
Associated terms/contextualisations	Complexity	39
	Ambiguity	10
	Risk	11
	Contingency	4
	Controversy	10

To ensure the reliability and validity of the selection of the publications, the constructs and classifications were made transparent. In addition, a member of the working group independently intercoded the selected publications. The intercoder reliability of the selection by title and abstract was 96.72%.

After the systematic coding of the materials, they were analysed initially according to the categories. For this purpose, they were evaluated according to the main categories and the subcategories, significant text passages that were representative of them were cited, and connections between them based on the main categories and the subcategories were elaborated. In addition, the frequencies of the subcategories were counted using a crosstab (Mayring, 2014).

No other classification criteria were used, as the focus of this paper is analysing the definitions of the terms used and their underlying concepts to provide an overview of the understanding and use of the terms relative to the concept of uncertainty in geography education. Consequently, no judgements of publications were made, nor were the research results presented or the quality of the included publications surveyed.

Results

The term uncertainty is used in all the 63 selected publications. In addition, 16 specifications were found where the term uncertainty does not stand singularly but is placed in an initial context using other words (see Table 1). This already allowed conclusions to be drawn on the context of the term.

The detailed results of the content analysis of all the publications are presented in Appendix 3. Table 2 shows a summary of the most important results.

Type of publication

Table 2 shows that more than half (33 out of 63) of the publications are empirical, and almost half are theoretical or conceptual (30 out of 63). The detailed analysis (see Appendix 3) shows that the type of publication is not correlated with the type of definition. Likewise, almost equal proportions of the publications are related to the geographical field (20 empirical and 16 theoretical or conceptual publications), to education (8 empirical and 8 theoretical or conceptual), or to both subjects (5 empirical and 6 theoretical or conceptual).

Type of definition of uncertainty

The term uncertainty is clearly defined in 10% (6) of the publications: either explicitly defined (3) or by referring to other sources (3). In four publications, the definition refers to the geographic subject, and in two publications, to education; but in all such publications, a constitutive lack of knowledge is always named. In 66% (42) of the publications, implicit definitions are used (see, for example, Appendix 1). In 24% (15) of the publications, there is neither a clear definition nor a clear reference to another text. Instead, uncertainty is used without a definition or implicit framing.

Discipline-related reference of uncertainty

In 57% (36) of the publications, uncertainty is related specifically to the geographical subject (Colucci-Gray, 2014; Feng, 2012); in 25% (16) of the publications, to geography education (Higde et al., 2017; Jones et al., 2008); and in 18% (11) of the publications, to both fields (McKeown, 2013; Melville & Pilot, 2014). This is evident in the following three areas:

Regarding geography, Schauss and Sprenger (2021) used the term disciplinary uncertainty. In this context, the reference of uncertainty to knowledge can be differentiated from that to science, as shown in the following paragraphs.

Tauritz (2019) used the term knowledge uncertainty without an explicit definition. He related uncertainty to knowledge and stated that the experience of this uncertainty is highly individual: ‘What one person experiences as uncertain knowledge, for instance, because he doesn’t know the source, could be experienced as certain knowledge by someone else who does recognize the source and judges it as trustworthy’ (Tauritz, 2019, p. 302).

In 44% (28) of the publications, uncertainty is named as an inherent aspect of the Earth, its climate, and environmental systems and is linked to environmentally related topics (Condeza-Marmentini & Flores-Gonzalez, 2019). For the latter, Crossley (2019) used the term environmental uncertainty, whereas for climate science, Schauss and Sprenger (2021) used the term climate change uncertainty. The discipline-related reference is also sometimes further extended to sustainable development in general (Colucci-Gray et al., 2013; Condeza-Marmentini & Flores-González, 2019; Feng, 2012; Hasslöf, 2015; Lundholm & Plummer, 2010; Román & Busch, 2016; Tauritz, 2019). Summers and Childs (2007, p. 311) spoke of ‘real world problems’ in this context, noting that ‘[problems are] often so complex and the evidential base so uncertain that science cannot provide any definite conclusions.’ Davidson et al. (2021, p. 324) generalised this as a ‘changing and uncertain world,’ whereas Crossley (2019) used the term global uncertainty.

Beyond knowledge, uncertainty is also considered an inherent, constitutive aspect of geography science. In some publications, the term scientific uncertainty was used as a specification of the term uncertainty (Table 1). In this context, the IPCC report (2007) is increasingly being used for a definition (Busch & Osborne, 2014; Ruggeri, 2011; Schauss & Sprenger, 2021); note: there is already a newer IPCC report; however, the older one was used in the analysed publications). In the IPCC report, uncertainty is defined as follows:

An expression of the degree to which a value is unknown (e.g., the future state of the climate system); uncertainty can result from lack of information or from disagreement about what is known or even knowable. It may have many types of sources, from quantifiable errors in the data to ambiguously defined concepts or terminology, or uncertain projections of human behavior. Uncertainty can therefore be represented by quantitative measures (e.g., a range of values calculated by various models) or by qualitative statements (e.g., reflecting the judgment of a team of experts). See also likelihood.

(IPCC, 2007, cited in Ruggeri, 2011, p. 22f.)

In this context, the IPCC report (2007, cited in Ruggeri, 2011) differentiates three forms of uncertainty: (1) value uncertainty, which refers to uncertainty in empirical data, (2) structural uncertainty, which refers to uncertainty in models, and (3) unpredictability, which is a result of modeling complex systems including the stochasticity involved in the unpredictability of future human behavior.

Pallant and Lee (2015) also explicitly mentioned the roots of scientific uncertainty in their definition. They emphasised the conceptual and methodological limitations of science. Referring to other authors, Ruggeri (2011, p. 29) differentiated four types of scientific uncertainty: (1) epistemological uncertainty in empirical approaches, which refers to uncertainty that arises from empirical approaches via experimentation and natural observation, (2) epistemological uncertainty in theoretical approaches, which refers to uncertainty that arises from theoretical approaches via numerical or conceptual modelling (3) ontological uncertainty, which refers to uncertainty that arises from the stochastic nature of complex systems, and (4) subjective uncertainty, which refers to uncertainty that arises from individual, disciplinary and social bias.

Regarding education, uncertainty is discussed with a focus on teaching and learning, the actors, or rarely, the interactions between the actors. Uncertainty in these instances, however, is hardly ever considered in a general pedagogical sense and without reference to the subject of geography and to scientific or knowledge uncertainty, as seen in Perkins et al. (2018, p. 1043): ‘teaching all forms of scientific knowledge as rooted in some level of uncertainty, complexity, and nuance.’ The publication of Melville and Pilot (2014) is an exception, as they focused on education without reference to geography and scientific uncertainty:

Uncertainty is part of pedagogical practice and stems from a number of sources: the lack of an agreed-upon knowledge base, the lack of consensus about goals and methods, the multiple and often conflicting values associated with education, and all the complexities involved in relating to and working with others

(Helsing, 2007, cited in Melville & Pilot, 2014, p. 353)

Regarding geography education, uncertainty is described as an inherent feature of climate (change) education (Perkins et al., 2018; Schauss & Sprenger, 2021) and ESD: ‘Environmental education has adopted the concepts of complexity and uncertainty from environmental science’ (Condeza-Marmentini & Flores-González, 2019, p. 1). In this context, the concrete promotion of competencies in dealing with uncertainty is postulated and reference is made to corresponding guiding principles (Feng, 2012; Perkins et al. 2018; Petschel-Held et al., 2001; Sterling et al. 2010; Tauritz, 2019). Furthermore, it can be stated that transformative learning is thematised in the knowledge society, and consequently, theories of transformative learning are used as foundational theories when addressing uncertainty (Condeza-Marmentini & Flores-González, 2019; Perkins et al., 2018; Sterling, 2010). In this circumstance, teachers need to take up uncertainty with their own students and prepare them for situations where decision-making occurs under conditions of uncertainty. Therefore, new transformative pedagogies are required that include risk as a challenge for teachers (Davidson et al., 2021).

In summing up the different discipline-related references to uncertainty, it has to be acknowledged that different aspects of uncertainty are discussed depending on whether the publication is related to geography, education, or geography education. Regarding geography education, the ways of dealing with the different discipline-related references to uncertainty are thematised. The next section takes a closer look at geography education and discusses in detail the different discipline-related references to uncertainty in this context.

Ways of dealing with uncertainty

Across the publications, four ways of dealing with uncertainty were identified: recognising uncertainty, coping with it, using it, and avoiding it.

[1] Recognising uncertainty was seen in 11% (7) of the publications. They deal with uncertainty by simply recognising its existence. To be able to recognise uncertainty, Henderson et al. (1993, p. 1) postulated the following goals, among others: ‘(1) familiarize students with scientific methods [and] (2) help students understand the role of uncertainty.’

[2] Coping with uncertainty was seen in 46% (29) of the publications, where it is often conceptualised as a challenge (Schauss & Sprenger, 2021). The focus is on the need to accept or promote coping with uncertainty, and recommendations for doing so. For instance, Wals (2010, cited in McGregor, 2013, p. 3576) recommended that ‘it might be more fruitful to put our energy toward living with uncertainty: seeing it as a given, something that cannot be conquered.’ Fortuin and Bush (2010) also described a flexible and open attitude as a way of dealing with uncertainty. In this context, experiencing personal uncertainty (Pallant & Lee, 2015), coping with uncertainty, and promoting ‘uncertainty competences’ (Tauritz, 2012, p. 299) and decision-making under conditions of uncertainty (Colucci-Gray, 2014) are required for teaching. Furthermore, Lambert (2002) cited the notion of confident uncertainty as a goal for teachers in this context.

[3] Using uncertainty as a fruitful learning opportunity is addressed as a way of dealing with uncertainty in 14% (9) of the publications. According to Alderman et al. (2021, p. 190), uncertainty is an important resource for improving practices and outcomes when it is critically examined and shared. Consequently, it should be used productively, which means more than just tolerating uncertainty.

[4] Avoiding uncertainty, found in 5% (3) of the publications, can be positioned as diametrically opposite to using uncertainty. Kirschner and Peltan (2019, p. 405) defined uncertainty avoidance as follows: ‘Uncertainty avoidance […] measures how the people feel threatened by the unpredictability of the future and therefore try to ensure certainty through rules and regulations.’ Consequently, there is an effort to control uncertainty.

Actor group

In the majority of the publications, the discussion of uncertainty in geography education is concentrated on teachers and students. Teachers are the focus of 59% (37) of the publications, and students, 33% (21) of the publications. Most of the publications address the relationship between teachers and/or students and uncertainty and how they deal or how they should deal with it. Therefore, in some publications, the terms teacher uncertainty (Melville & Pilot, 2014) and student uncertainty (Tonts, 2011) are introduced. This illustrates the high relevance of these actor groups in the publications.

In 14% (9) of the publications, uncertainty related to the work of scientists is discussed. Ruggeri (2011), among others, stated that there scientists and non-scientists have different comprehensions of the term scientific uncertainty. The publications suggest that while scientists use the term to discuss possible outcomes or probabilities of uncertainty, the non-scientists equate the term uncertainty with ‘not knowing’ in everyday language (Busch & Osborne, 2014).

In 10% (6) of the publications, society is identified as a group of actors, especially with regard to future changes in society and social life (Busch & Osborne, 2014; Julien et al., 2018). According to Feng (2012), in this context, the idea of a ‘learning society’ could emerge in the face of increasing uncertainty.

Temporal dimension

Regarding this dimension, uncertainty is related to the past in 3% (2) of the publications; to the present, in 17% (11) of the publications; and to the future, in 41% (26) of the publications. Regarding the past, uncertainty refers to incomplete information, interpretations, and inferences, since the past can only be reconstructed approximately, for example, in the case of climate change with models (Ruggeri, 2011). Regarding the present, uncertainty refers to missing factual information and dealing with uncertain situations. Regarding the future, Dahlbeck (2014, p. 158) stated that ‘the future is shrouded in uncertainty.’ He referred to uncertainty in terms of future (sustainable) development, as did many other publications. Since sustainability issues are often future-oriented, future competencies of students and teachers are discussed in the publications and should be developed. These competencies includes decision-making under conditions of uncertainty in the context of sustainable development (Davidson et al., 2021) and future climate predictions (Busch & Osborne, 2014).

Associated terms/contextualizations

In connection with or in the context of uncertainty, other terms or aspects are also frequently mentioned within and across the publications. In 62% (39) of the publications, the term complexity is addressed in connection with uncertainty, especially in relation to the geographic subject. For example, the inherent complexity of the environmental system and corresponding implications for education are highlighted (Belluigi & Cundill, 2017; Condeza-Marmentini & Flores-González, 2019). In addition, the following terms are used multiple times, sometimes in combination with uncertainty: controversy in 16% (10) of the publications, risk in 17% (11) of the publications, ambiguity in 16% (10) of the publications, and contingency in 6% (4) of the publications. Since the understanding and use of these terms are not the focus of this study due to their less frequent presence in the publications, they are not analysed in-depth but highlighted as key associated terms.

Discussion

This paper is aimed at presenting an overview of the definitions and concepts of uncertainty as reflected in geography education. The results of our review showed that the term uncertainty is predominantly defined only implicitly, partly through specifications, or not at all in the publications reviewed. A reason for this might be that the term uncertainty is regularly used in everyday discourse, and therefore, a uniform understanding of it is assumed, whereas an explicit definition is considered obsolete even in scientific discourse. This was seen critically, as it is not made clear which understanding and which form of uncertainty underlie the use of the term in the publications. However, our detailed analysis showed that the understanding of uncertainty depends on the individual’s point of view and the context. A scientist’s understanding of uncertainty may differ from that of a student (Busch and Osborne (2014). Our detailed analyses showed a heterogeneous use and different emphases of the term uncertainty the selected disciplines. This result is in line with those in other research areas of educational science, in which a uniform understanding of the term uncertainty is also not apparent or different perceptions of the term are discussed (Bähr et al., 2019; Böing, 2016; Paseka et al., 2018).

Looking at the diversity of definitions in the publications, two antipodes in the discussion of uncertainty in the field of geography education were seen (Figure 2). On the one hand, uncertainty is discussed as scientific and knowledge uncertainty, with a strong dominance of the geographic subject as the research focus within geography education. Regarding content, epistemological conditions as well as research heuristics are mainly put in the context of (geography) science, and future-related topic complexes from the fields of ESD and GCED are discussed. Regarding knowledge, on the one hand, uncertainty is considered a constitutive part of it, and on the other hand, it is discussed as action and decision uncertainty. Although the ways in which individuals (i.e. teachers and students) deal with uncertainty and the promotion of a competent and professional way of dealing with it are primarily discussed, interactions between teachers and students are hardly examined. The focus of the publications is coping as a way of dealing with uncertainty and corresponding or associated competencies (Tauritz, 2019). Decision-making does not dominate in the analysed geography education publications. This seems surprising, since uncertainty is often linked to decision issues and is part of the decision theory in a formal—typological sense. From a temporal perspective, dealing with uncertainty is often linked to the future, and consequences of actions are discussed.

Figure 2. Systematization of reference points for the definition of uncertainty.

Research gaps

Following our systematic literature review, we identified further research gaps, as follows. First, there are still research gaps regarding scientific and knowledge uncertainty. It was evident that uncertainty is inherent and related specifically to the geographical subject, especially for topics from the field of sustainable development. It remains unclear (1) how and (2) to what extent this uncertainty is and should be presented to teachers and students, for example, in school textbooks.

Second, further research gaps exist regarding action and decision-making. Not yet answered questions are (1) how students and teachers perceive uncertainty, (2) which of the existing interpretations of uncertainty they embrace, and (3), which understanding should be promoted. Regarding the way of dealing with uncertainty, different ways were identified in the included publications. However, it remains unclear (1) how to promote ways of adequately dealing with uncertainty, such as preparing students and teachers for decision-making under conditions of uncertainty, and (2) which factors play a decisive role in the different ways of dealing with uncertainty. This also opens the question of (3) how to use uncertainty as a fruitful learning opportunity in geography education.

Third, scientific and knowledge uncertainty and action and decision uncertainty are hardly discussed together in one publication, for example, at a personal level (students and teachers), although they could be causally and conditionally connected. Such a double bias seems interesting for future research in the field of geography education, for example, regarding how teachers and students deal with uncertain knowledge about a subject matter, such as climate models.

Limitations

The strength of this systematic literature review is its formal, systematic process, due to which the representativeness of its results can be considered high. This representativeness could be increased by including more literature databases, such as Google Scholar. Likewise, other search terms could be added that may be used synonymously with the selected terms or in a similar context. These terms include, but are not limited to, contingency, non-knowledge, ambiguity, ignorance, and risk.

The possibility of publication bias in this study is considered low due to the thoroughness of its implementation (Moher et al., 2009). However, the use of only English-language publications leads to a slight publication bias. Regarding the qualitative content analysis, the relevance of reproducibility as a measure of reliability and validity has been replaced by procedural documentation, argumentative interpretive assurance, closeness to the subject matter, rule guidance, communicative validation, and triangulation (Mayring, 2014). The categories could have been further differentiated through the dualistic separation of the empirical and theoretical or conceptual publications. However, this does not seem easy to implement, as theoretical publications also often contain normative inserts and thus, cannot be clearly separated from conceptual publications.

Conclusion

In this systematic review of definitions and concepts of uncertainty in the field of geography education, consistent usage of the term was not found in the analysed publications. Different approaches to and contexts of uncertainty were distinguished, which are at least partly interrelated. The summarised differentiation between scientific and knowledge uncertainty, as well as between action and decision uncertainty, makes clear that different theoretical frames for the discussion of uncertainty in the context of geography education are used. Scientific and knowledge uncertainty is embedded in a disciplinary discourse with geography as the subject in the foreground, whereas action and decision uncertainty is embedded in a discourse about general questions of interaction in educational settings and the situation of individuals in such settings (teachers and students). Consequently, both of the comprehensions of uncertainty mentioned at the start of this paper, from the perspective of geography (e.g. IPCC, 2022) and education (e.g. Böing, 2016), were found. This result is not surprising since geography education combines the two fields in an interdisciplinary way.

Summing up, it can be said that uncertainty—among other characteristics—is constitutive and omnipresent in the context of geography education. Geography scientists and teachers, as well as students, are confronted with scientific, knowledge, action, and decision uncertainties due to subject-specific challenges and have to learn to deal with them. This requires different competencies (Feng, 2012; Perkins et al., 2018; Sterling, 2010; Tauritz, 2019). If dealing with such different uncertainties is the goal of geography education, there is a need to promote (1) a clear understanding of different forms of uncertainty, (2) an open and critical discussion about adequate handling of uncertainty, and (3) a reflection on different ways of dealing with uncertainty. This gives rise to several research gaps.

Due to the multiple points of reference of uncertainty, the related multi-perspective richness of its facets, the diffuse understanding of the term, and the many research gaps related to it, this review was a promising starting point for further research. Especially in view of increasing changes and opportunities in the VUCA world (Unger, 2019), uncertainty-related topics represent an exciting field of research in the field of (future) geography education.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Funding

We acknowledge financial support from the Open Access Publication Fund of Universität Hamburg.

Appendix 1.

Deductive categories

Table

Main category	Subcategory	Definition	Example
Type of publication	Theoretical/conceptual	The paper is theoretical.	–
	Empirical	The paper contains an empirical part.	–
Type of definition of uncertainty	Explicit definition	One definition is explicitly given.	‘A state of incomplete knowledge that can result from a lack of information or from disagreement about what is known or even knowable. It may have many types of sources, from imprecision in the data to ambiguously defined concepts or terminology, incomplete understanding of critical processes, or uncertain projections of human behaviour’ (IPCC, 2018, p. 559).
	References to other sources	Reference is made to the definition in other sources.	‘The IPCC defines uncertainty as: An expression of the degree to which a value is unknown (e.g. the future state of the climate system)’ (Ruggeri, 2011, p. 22).
	Implicit definition	A definition is implied.	‘Uncertainty is part of teaching practice, and derives from a number of sources: the lack of an agreed knowledge base; the lack of consensus around goals and methods; the multiple and often conflicted values that are held around education; and all the complexities inherent in relating to, and working with, other people’ (Melville & Pilot, 2014, p. 353).
	No definition	No definition is given.	‘The economic dimension of SD [Sustainable Development] is the dimension associated with the greatest uncertainty, as shown by the low proportion of teachers that agreed with the statement “Stable economic growth is a prerequisite for SD (18%).”’ (Borg et al., 2014, p. 539)
Discipline-related reference of uncertainty	Geographic subject	The term uncertainty refers to a geographic subject (e.g. scientific modelling).	‘In a “prospective” mitigation pathway, emissions (or sometimes concentrations) are prescribed, giving a range of GMST [Global Mean Surface Temperature] outcomes because of uncertainty in the climate response’ (IPCC, 2018, p. 63).
	Education	The term uncertainty refers to education.	‘Teaching is evidently and inevitably uncertain’ (Floden & Clark, 1988, p. 1).
Actor group	Scientists	The term uncertainty refers to the scientists.	‘For example, the modelling of complex systems in climate change science requires the coordination of researchers from multiple disciplines working together to interpret data from many sources, which contributes to the levels of uncertainty in climate science’ (Ruggeri, 2011, p. 22).
	Teachers	The term uncertainty refers to the teachers.	‘We conceptualize uncertainty in a positive sense, believing that when teachers accept “some uncertainty about the validity of their own teaching practices and beliefs that they can begin to imagine and construct new and more effective ones.”’ (Helsing, 2007, p. 1322 in Melville & Pilot, 2014, p. 353)
	Students	The term uncertainty refers to the students.	‘[T]he present study focuses on student uncertainty about climate change’ (Schauss & Sprenger, 2021, p. 5).

Appendix 2.

Inductive categories

Table

Text passage	Paraphrase	Generalization	Reduction: Main category—Subcategory
‘While there is scientific consensus on the causes of climate change and the role of human activity, there is less certainty surrounding climate model predictions of the future climate and even less certainty as to what we should do as a society’ (Busch & Osborne, 2014, p. 28).	There is scientific consensus on the causes of climate change and the role of human activity, but the climate model predictions of the future climate and the action of society are uncertain.	Social dealing with uncertainty	Actor group—society
‘It provides a means of dealing with the complexity and uncertainty of the human/environment system, studied on past and present timescales’ (Julien et al., 2018, p. 33).	The uncertainty of the human/environment system is examined on present and past time scales.	Uncertainty about the past	Temporal dimension –– past
		Uncertainty about the present	Temporal dimension—present
‘The future is shrouded in uncertainty’ (Dahlbeck, 2014, p. 158).	There is uncertainty about the future.	Uncertainty about the future	Temporal dimension—future
‘Having learned about uncertainty as an element in all scientific theories, students were able to discern its inappropriate amplification in the public sphere of having nonscientists participate along with scientists in discussing the theory of anthropogenic climate change’ (Labosier & Fay, 2019, 1906).	Students recognise the reinforcement of uncertainty in the public sphere.	Recognition of uncertainty	Temporal dimension—recognition
‘Students learnt to deal with uncertainty in scientific research’ (Fortuin & Bush, 2010, p. 19).	Students learnt to deal with uncertainty in scientific research.	Coping with uncertainty	Ways of dealing with uncertainty—coping
‘[She] describes in her book […] how scientific uncertainty is manipulated for political purposes’ (Ruggeri, 2011, p. 8).	Scientific uncertainty is manipulatively used for political purposes.	Use of uncertainty	Ways of dealing with uncertainty—use
‘Uncertainty avoidance […] measures how the people feel threatened by the unpredictability of the future and therefore try to ensure certainty through rules and regulations’ (Kirschner & Peltan, 2019, p. 405).	Uncertainty avoidance measures people’s perceived threat of uncertainty.	Avoidance of uncertainty	Ways of dealing with uncertainty—avoidance
‘After all, we do not know (all) the answers and live in a world marinated in uncertainty and complexity’ (Wals, 2010, p. 145).	The world is characterised by uncertainty and complexity.	–	Associated terms – complexity
‘If previously accepted knowledge is transferred to ambiguity and uncertainty, the individual is demanded to shape its own social interaction on the basis of more or less subjective attitudes and decisions’ (Dannenberg & Grapentin, 2016, p. 8).	If previously accepted knowledge is transferred to ambiguity and uncertainty, the individual has to shape its own social interaction.	–	Associated terms – ambiguity
‘However, this cultural trait is accompanied by high uncertainty avoidance. Teachers are not willing to take any risks unless they are very certain that the policy will really be carried out and the effects are positive’ (Lam & Lidstone, 2007, p. 243).	Teachers are not willing to take risks unless they are very sure that the action will actually be taken and have a positive impact.	–	Associated terms – risk
‘In this context, science education can contribute toward a sustainable education by putting emphasis on the awareness of the complexity of natural systems; the characteristics of ignorance, contingency, impermanence and uncertainty of human knowledge and portraying and promoting attitudes of humility and choices of reversibility in human actions’ (Gray et al., 2010, p. 212).	Science education can contribute towards sustainable education by putting emphasis on several things (e.g. contingency).	–	Associated terms – contingency
‘In this publication, the author argues that there will always be uncertainty about educationally appropriate responses to controversial issues’ (Jickling, 2003, p. 20).	There will always be uncertainty about educationally appropriate responses to controversial issues.	–	Associated terms—controversy

Appendix 3.

Overview of the results of the analyzed papers

Table

Author/Reference	Type of publi-cation		Type of definition of uncertainty				Discipline-related reference to uncer-tainty
	Theoretical/ conceptual	Empirical	Explicit definition	Reference to other sources	Implicit definition	No definition	Geographic subject	Education
Adams (2001)		X		X			X
Alderman et al. (2021)	X					X		X
Belluigi and Cundill (2017)		X			X		X
Benninghaus et al. (2019)		X			X		X	X
Borg et al. (2014)		X				X	X
Busch and Osborne (2014)	X		X				X	X
Colucci-Gray (2014)	X					X	X
Colucci-Gray et al. (2013)	X				X		X
Condeza-Marmentini and Flores-González (2019)	X				X		X
Cordero et al. (2020)		X			X		X
Crossley (2019)	X				X		X
Dahlbeck (2014)	X					X		X
Dannenberg and Grapentin (2016)	X				X		X	X
Davidson et al. (2021)	X				X		X	X
Davison (2009)	X					X		X
Engelen and Budke (2020)		X				X		X
Feng (2012)		X			X		X
Fortuin and Bush (2010)		X			X		X
Gray et al. (2010)		X			X		X
Guimarães and Finardi (2021)	X					X		X
Hasslöf (2015)		X			X		X	X
Henderson (2020)	X					X	X	X
Henderson et al. (1993)	X				X		X
Higde et al. (2017)		X				X		X
Jickling (2003)	X				X			X
Jones et al. (2008)		X			X			X
Julien et al. (2018)		X			X		X
Kirschner and Peltan (2019)		X			X			X
Labosier and Fay (2019)	X				X		X
Lam (2007)		X				X		X
Lam and Lidstone (2007)		X			X			X
Lambert (2002)	X					X		X
Levrini et al. (2019)		X			X		X
López-Alcarria et al. (2019)	X				X			X
Lundholm and Plummer (2010)	X				X		X
Martin and Liem (2015)		X			X		X
Martinson and Harnapp (1975)	X				X		X
McGregor (2013)	X				X		X
McKeown (2013)	X					X	X	X
Melville and Pilot (2014)		X		X			X	X
Mortensen (1996)	X				X		X
Newton et al. (2014)	X				X		X
Nikolic et al. (2020)		X				X	X
Ojala (2013)	X				X			X
Ouariachi Peralta et al. (2017)		X				X	X
Pallant and Lee (2015)		X			X		X
Pauw and Béneker (2015)		X			X		X	X
Pawson (2015)	X			X			X
Perkins et al. (2018)		X			X		X
Pruneau et al. (2003)		X				X		X
Ruggeri (2011)	X		X				X
Sahin (2016)		X			X		X
Schauss and Sprenger (2021)		X	X				X
Sprain and Timpson (2012)	X				X		X
Sterling (2010)	X				X		X
Summers and Childs (2007)		X			X		X
Summers et al. (2004)		X			X		X
Tauritz (2012)	X				X		X	X
Tauritz (2019)		X			X		X	X
Tonts (2011)		X			X		X
Unterhalter (2017)		X			X			X
Wals (2010)	X				X		X
Yu et al. (2020)		X			X		X
Total (n = 63)	30	33	3	3	42	15	47	27

Table

Author/Reference	Actor group					Temporal dimension				Ways of dealing with uncertainty					Associated terms/ contextuali-zations
	Scientists	Students	Teachers	Society	Non-specified	Past	Present	Future	Non-specified	Recognition	Coping	Use	Avoidance	Non-specified	Complexity	Ambiguity	Risk	Contingency	Controversy
Adams (2001)	X	X					X	X			X				X		X		X
Alderman et al. (2021)			X				X					X
Belluigi and Cundill (2017)	X	X	X						X		X				X
Benninghaus et al. (2019)		X		X					X		X				X
Borg et al. (2014)			X						X					X
Busch and Osborne (2014)	X	X		X				X		X	X				X
Colucci-Gray (2014)	X			X				X				X			X		X	X	X
Colucci-Gray et al. (2013)	X	X	X				X				X				X	X			X
Condeza-Marmentini and Flores-González (2019)		X							X					X	X	X			X
Cordero et al. (2020)	X								X	X
Crossley (2019)	X								X					X	X
Dahlbeck (2014)		X						X			X	X					X
Dannenberg and Grapentin (2016)		X							X		X				X	X	X
Davidson et al. (2021)		X					X	X			X				X		X
Davison (2009)					X			X						X	X	X		X
Engelen and Budke (2020)		X							X					X
Feng (2012)		X	X					X			X				X
Fortuin and Bush (2010)		X	X						X	X	X				X
Gray et al. (2010)					X		X	X			X				X		X	X
Guimarães and Finardi (2021)		X						X			X				X
Hasslöf (2015)		X	X					X						X	X
Henderson (2020)					X				X					X
Henderson et al. (1993)	X	X						X		X	X			X	X				X
Higde et al. (2017)			X						X
Jickling (2003)		X	X						X					X		X	X		X
Jones et al. (2008)		X	X						X		X				X
Julien et al. (2018)		X		X		X	X	X			X				X
Kirschner and Peltan (2019)		X						X			X		X
Labosier and Fay (2019)		X		X					X	X				X					X
Lam (2007)			X						X		X		X				X
Lam and Lidstone (2007)			X				X						X
Lambert (2002)			X						X					X	X
Levrini et al. (2019)		X		X			X	X			X				X
López-Alcarria et al. (2019)					X				X		X
Lundholm and Plummer (2010)					X			X						X	X
Martin and Liem (2015)		X							X		X
Martinson and Harnapp (1975)					X				X					X
McGregor (2013)					X				X					X	X
McKeown (2013)			X					X			X				X
Melville and Pilot (2014)			X						X	X	X				X
Mortensen (1996)					X				X					X
Newton et al. (2014)		X						X						X	X				X
Nikolic et al. (2020)		X							X		X
Ojala (2013)		X							X					X	X
Ouariachi Peralta et al. (2017)					X			X			X	X			X
Pallant and Lee (2015)		X						X		X					X
Pauw and Béneker (2015)					X			X						X	X		X
Pawson (2015)					X		X		X					X
Perkins et al. (2018)		X	X					X			X				X
Pruneau et al. (2003)		X							X					X
Ruggeri (2011)					X	X	X	X						X	X	X		X	X
Sahin (2016)					X			X						X		X
Schauss and Sprenger (2021)		X						X			X	X			X		X
Sprain and Timpson (2012)		X							X			X			X
Sterling (2010)		X						X						X	X	X
Summers and Childs (2007)		X	X						X			X			X
Summers et al. (2004)	X	X	X						X			X		X
Tauritz (2012)		X	X					X			X	X			X	X
Tauritz (2019)		X	X						X		X				X	X			X
Tonts (2011)		X							X		X
Unterhalter (2017)			X				X							X	X
Wals (2010)					X				X					X
Yu et al. (2020)		X							X					X			X
Total (n = 63)	9	37	21	6	14	2	11	26	33	7	29	9	3	26	39	10	11	4	10