In-Words Outwards: The Diffusion of the 'New' Geography, 1968-70

In-Words Outwards: The Diffusion of the 'New' Geography, 1968-70Author(s): J. W. R. WhitehandSource: Area, Vol. 3, No. 3 (1971), pp. 158-163Published by: The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20000569 .

Accessed: 13/06/2014 00:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) is collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Area.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.22 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 00:04:54 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rgs

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20000569?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


In-words outwards: the diffusion of the 'new' geography, 1968-70

J. W. R. Whitehand, University of Birmingham

Summary. Spatial changes in the degree of adoption of the ' new' geography in final honours examination papers during 1968-70 are examined. A multi-step diffusion emanat ing from Cambridge and Bristol is suggested.

In a previous article1 a preliminary description was given of certain aspects of innovation diffusion in British geography, attention being focussed on the

particular contemporary example of the ' new' geography-a term used as a

shorthand for the quantified and model-building approach that has become increasingly characteristic of British geography during the past decade. In the

present article one aspect of the ' new ' geography previously described, namely its introduction into final honours examination papers, is considered further by examining spatial changes in the extent of its adoption over time.

The number of ' New Geography' questions as a percentage of questions set in final honours examinations has again been taken as a basis for comparing

the extent of departmental adoptions; 'New Geography' questions being defined on the basis of the terminology used.2 The adoption data for the three years 1968-70 are given in Table 13 in which departments of geography are

11t o 10 *

9

B 11970

0 3 w~ 7

S.-~~~~~~ Eih/ eatet unn en

Figur 1. Pecntg of 1969egrpy ustos96-0pote gis

a 2

mean of distances from Cambridge and Bristol.

158



Diffusion of the ' New ' Geography 159

Table 1 ' New Geography' Questions as a Percentage of Questions set in Final Honours Examination Papers, 1968-70

Departments 1968 1969 1970 (in 1970 Rank Order) Bristol 20 6 17 9 19-3 Cambridge 9 2 13 0 18-2 Sussex 8l1 t 16 4 16-7 Birmingham 13 9 14 1 16 1 Exeter 13 8 9 0 16 0 Belfast 10 1 8-6 14 0 St. Andrews 7l1 t 5-1 12 7 King's 1.9 6.3* 12 6 LSE 1.9 97 126 Liverpool 9 7 5.4* 12 5 Reading 7 4 18-1 11-6 Strathclyde 4 0 1 8 11 5 TC Dublin 2-3t 7 1 t 11 -ot Manchester 8.0* 6 2 9-8 Aberdeen 0 8 0 6 7.4 Sheffield 5 7 0 8 6-6 Leeds 1.7* 4.5* 5.8* UCL 1.9 2-5 5 7 Nottingham 2 2 5-4 5 2 Leicester 1 2 2-9 5 2 UC Dublin 2 6t 7 3t 5.0t Aberystwyth 2 9 4-5 4-6 Swansea 4 5 3.3 4.5 Dundee 0 0 1 4 4-5 Newcastle 3 2 4 6 4 4 Salford 0.0* 0.0* 2.7* Hull 1 9 1-9 2 5 Durham 3 1 2 8 2 5 Edinburgh 2 7 3 0 2 4 Glasgow 2-0 2 8 2-4 Keele 1.1 2-8 2-2 Oxford 2 4 1-0 1 2 Bedford 1.9 0-6 0 8

Mean 4 8 5 8 8-2

*Only final-year papers in a department in which penultimate-year papers count towards

the degree assessment in at least one Faculty.

tLess than 50 questions set.

*One paper missing. London colleges did not have separate papers in 1968-the percentage shown is for London University. Source: Papers supplied by Departments of Geography or by other official suppliers.

ranked according to their adoption scores in 1970. Some caution is necessary in interpreting data at the level of the individual department particularly where small numbers of questions are set. Figure 1 shows the extent of adoption for each of the three years related to the mean of the distances from Cambridge and Bristol, the latter two departments being regarded as the innovation centres.4 Here eight-department running means have been used in order to pick out the more general trends. Examination of the changes in the shape of the adoption curve over the three-year period allows us to make certain general statements about the spatial progress of the diffusion over time. By 1968 considerable regional differences had emerged. In general there was a relatively steep fall away from Cambridge and Bristol up to a distance of just over 250 km beyond



160 Diffusion of the' New' Geography

c G

0 0~~~~~~

Co Cii ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~000 CA()

(0~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ oj

4..

hCch C40-- 0

0. c~~~~0

V 0~~~ 0 COA~ n

c 0 w w~~~~~~~~~C 00-I w

0 m~~~~~~~~~~~~~.0 C

0 0 0~~~~~~~~0 '0 h.0



Diffusion of the' New' Geography 161

which there was a levelling-off at relatively low scores. The steeply inclined inner section of the curve was notable for a trough at approximately 150 km emphasizing the tendency for some places relatively close to Bristol and Cam bridge (such as London and Oxford) to have lower scores than places slightly further away (such as Birmingham and Exeter). Such a trough at a relatively short distance from the centre of innovation has been reported in other studies in which both resistance to adoption and the multi-step nature of the diffusion

process have been suggested as explanations.5 It is noticeable that the 150 km trough had already virtually been eliminated by the considerable increase at this distance by 1969 by which time the general decline between the innovation centres and the approximately 250 km mark was at its steepest. During 1968-69 the 200-50 km distance zone actually experienced a decrease and became lower than zones considerably further away. Indeed, the fact that during this period the rising of the curve tended to be greater at approximately 350 km than any

where except in the areas relatively close to Cambridge and Bristol suggests that diffusion may already have been proceeding from one or more second generation centres at a considerable distance from the south of England. The changes during 1969-70 tend to confirm this with a continued lifting of the curve at approximately 350 km combined with a rapid rise in Scotland and considerable filling-in of the trough that was previously showing signs of develop ing at the 250 km distance. The south of England meanwhile showed a decelera tion in its rate of increase. Thus by 1970 gradients were lessening all round.

If the data are examined in map form at the level of the individual department a pattern similar in its essentials emerges. In Figure 2 attention is drawn to the changes in the adoption scores of individual departments, 1968-69 and 1969-70. In 1968-69 the greatest increase was in the south and to a lesser extent the

midlands. Of the departments in the south and the midlands not in the top third of the rank order of increase for this period, all of those shown except Oxford had already reached relatively high adoption levels previously. The main increases are recorded elsewhere in the south of England, notably at Reading and Sussex. By 1969-70 the departments recording high increases were highly dispersed but with three out of the five highest increases occurring in Scotland. This period thus went a considerable way to redress the regional imbalance previously existing, although it is still the case that the majority of departments that have yet to experience a marked increase are in Scotland and the north of England.

Figure 3 depicts the same annual changes graphically using running means. During 1968-69 the area of peak increase had already shifted a short distance away from the innovation centres and a subsidiary peak appeared to be developing at approximately 350 km. During 1969-70 the main increase had shifted even further away from the innovation centres but took the form of two clearly distinguishable peaks at 200-50 km and 500 km. The first was an in-filling between the area of earliest increase in the south of England and the secondary peak developing during 1968-69. The second was the hitherto low-scoring and largely Scottish area. This pattern again suggests a multi-step diffusion process with innovation waves propagated both from a south of

England location and from a more northerly location. It is difficult to be precise about the northern sub-centre, especially without data for earlier years, but it is noticeable in Table 1 that Belfast, Liverpool and Manchester all had moderately high scores by 1968. Data less aggregated than in Figure 3 might suggest the



162 Diffusion of the ' New ' Geography

existence of more than one sub-centre, but as we move towards the level of the individual department it is unwise to place much reliance on the significance of small regional differences.

c 0

r3 + 5

E N A ,. 1969-70

S \ / O c NI 2 -0

Figr 0 C in p1968-69

-20

C ' 'U

-c

Mean of distances (kin) from Cambridge and BristoL

(Eight - department running means

Figure 3. Changes in percentage of New Geography ' questions 1968-69 and

1969-70 plotted against mean of distances from Cambridge and Bristol.

Although the scores of the majority of individual departments either increase or remain virtually unchanged over time, a minority of departments actually experience noticeable temporary decreases. In the case of the 200-50 km distance zone during 1968-69 a grouping of departments with decreases is sufficient to reflect itself in troughs in the curves in Figures 1 and 3. Such local decreases are by no means uncommon in spatial diffusion.6 In the present case the decreases are sometimes largely technical, for example some papers are set only in alternate years, but sometimes the loss of a member of staff results in the deletion of a particular paper, or part of a paper, from the syllabus.

The diffusion of the ' new' geography at the undergraduate level has now proceeded far enough to permit tentative generalizations about its timing. There is some indication in a previous study that the most rapid acceleration in the growth of the ' new' geography at the research level in Britain may have been during the period 1965-67 and that there were already the first signs of decelerating growth and the beginning of a more stable life at the end of the 1960s.7 The present analysis, albeit of a short period, if seen in conjunction

with more general findings on spatial diffusion, suggests that the ' new ' geog raphy may stabilize its position at the undergraduate level before the middle of the 1970s. The Bristol score has remained virtually static at approximately 20% for the past three years and this may well be approaching the saturation level.8 After the marked regional contrasts in 1968 and 1969, the rapid reduction



Diffusion of the' New' Geography 163

of the regional differences during 1969-70 raised the mean score for all depart ments from 5 8 % to 8 2 % and, if the Bristol figure is to be regarded as a ceiling, there is little room for further acceleration in the rate of overall increase beyond 1972 and already by this time the adoption curve is likely to be resembling the ultimate gently sloping form of the Hagerstrand model.

By 1973 it is likely that all but a small number of particularly resistant depart ments will have adopted the ' new' geography at the undergraduate level, at

least in so far as final honours examinations are a guide. By this time attention will doubtless have focussed on the diffusion of other innovations through the academic information system. The accurate monitoring of the changes resulting from these diffusions, though beset with data problems, can increase our aware ness of the environment in which we work. However, on its own it can provide only a partial key to an understanding of the innovation-diffusion process.

More important, but more elusive and so far largely uninvestigated, is the under lying information system. The elucidation of this information system is a high priority since without it the rational appraisal of the development of our disci pline is, to say the least, seriously handicapped.

Acknowledgements The author is indebted to Mr R. 0. MacKenna, the Librarian, University of Glasgow, for his assistance in obtaining final honours examination papers and to the various departments and individuals who supplied these. Mr M. F. Tanner, Mr R. G. Ford and Mrs S. M. White

hand kindly gave advice on a draft of this article and other colleagues in the Universities of

Birmingham and Glasgow made useful suggestions some of which have been incorporated. The illustrations were drawn by Miss J. L. Wilson in the Department of Geography, University of Birmingham.

Notes and References 1. Whitehand, J. W. R., 1970. Innovation diffusion in an academic discipline: the case of the

I new' geography. Area No. 3, 19-30.

2. Ibid., note 11. Many examination questions may be seeking, or may elicit, ' New Geography' answers without these being explicitly required by the terms used. Thus the percentages given in this article, while providing a basis for comparing departments, are conservative estimates of the significance of the ' new ' geography in undergraduate courses.

3. Changes in some of the 1969 scores compared with those given in the previous article reflect a more rigorous standardization based on more recent information about examination syllabuses.

4. The designation of these two departments as innovation centres is based on their virtual monopoly up to 1966 of authors contributing articles using quantitative methods in the Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers (Whitehand, J. W. R., op. cit., 20). Although the 1968 data from final honours examination papers reveal Bristol as having by far the highest adoption score, by this time the ' primary stage' in the diffusion process

would appear to be over. 5. James, P. E. and Wilbanks, T. J., 1970. World culture regions and patterns of change.

Proc. Ass. Am. Geogr., 2, 79. 6. Hagerstrand, T., 1952. The propagation of innovation waves. Lund Studies in Geography,

Series B, 4, Figures 6-8. 7. Whitehand, J. W. R., op. cit., 20. 8. See note 2 for cautionary remarks on the interpretation of the percentage figures used in

this article.

Deadlines Secretaries of Study Groups and others may like to note that the deadlines for receipt of news items and dates of future meetings are as follows: Area, 3, No. 4-17 September, 1971; Area, 4, No. 1-17 January, 1972.



Documents

In-Words Outwards: The Diffusion of the 'New' Geography, 1968-70