Talk:Technical geography

Necessary Additions

I'm quite surprised this page did not exist already, as the concept is currently taught in introduction to geography courses, and is often used to broadly organize text books.

We need elaboration on geostatistics, geotechnologies, and the internet as it applies to geography.

Any useful photos might be useful. I have several venn diagrams showing Geography broken between Technical geography, physical, and human. They are all copyrighted however. Creating such a diagram would be useful for this page as well as the general geography page.GeogSage (talk) 05:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that technical geography as a term or concept is as well-established as suggested in this article. The two sources of the first sentence have been cited 10 and 3 times, respectively, according to Google Scholar. That's next to nothing and a weak support for a bold claim ("Technical geography is one of three main branches of geography"). Furthermore, human geography and physical geography each refer to different kinds of geographical features, so if there's a third branch, it's integrated geography. Technical geography, on the other hand, is a set of methods and techniques and therefore more related to applied geography and quantitative geography, both of which currently are redirects that, imo, would've been more appropriate to cover the content presented in this article. I'm not saying this is all wrong, but I do think the article should be a bit more ambiguous concerning how technical geography relates to geography in general. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Axolotl Nr.733 that the sourcing is insufficient for such a bold claim, and I would add that the book that is cited (ISBN 978-1-84826-960-6) isn't even held by any libraries in WorldCat (OCLC 368068533), which is suspiciously obscure. Please verify this claim with some major textbooks used in the field, not these obscure references! Biogeographist (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I have improved the link to the book, as well as added another part. The publisher is EOLSS UNESCO. Please see below URL linking to de-obscure the reference. The ISBN might not be correct, but it is the one I pulled initially. Please see this link to Google Books that includes one of two volumes of the book as well. https://books.google.com/books?id=mr2cDAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

You can read more GIS material from the UNESCO page here if you'd like: https://www.eolss.net/sample-chapters/c01/

GeogSage (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

GeogSage added a reference to a major textbook, but I removed it since (oddly) it didn't verify the claim. Since we have two editors questioning the credibility of this article's main claim, I have added a {{POV}} tag to the article until the issue is resolved. Further explanation here by GeogSage would be appreciated. Biogeographist (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The breakdown of how we organize geography is a fair and ongoing debate. The concept of technical geography was introduced to me in an intro to geography textbook I was using for a class as a branch, and I dug up a bit more on it from there to find it in the literature. Integrated geography is specific to both human and physical. It is one of the four traditions of geography for sure, which is another way of breaking down the discipline, but in a ven diagram it isn't a branch, it is overlap between the two. Human and physical geography are referring to sub-fields and approaches within geography, not kinds of geographic features. GIScience, geoinformatics, and other subdisciplines are still geography, even if they are not working with a specific type of thematic data.

On the main geography page, the four traditions (Spatial, human environment interaction (integrated geography), regional, and Earth science (physical geography)) are a separate way to break down the discipline, with the second being the branch model. Like the branch model, these four approaches are not related to types of features, but instead approaches to dealing with spatial data. Outside of academia, few people use the grand traditions to describe geography, or organize the discipline, and instead broad categories of subdisciplines are organized together into branches.

Quantitative geography redirects to the quantitative revolution, a historic transition in philosophy, not a branch in the discipline, and applied geography is redirecting to the main geography page. The quantitative revolution certainly birthed technical geography, but the same can be said for Geographic Information Science, another popular term that warrants it's own page, but is much more applied then broad theoretical, and claims itself to be a separate sub-discipline within geography from geomatics, geoinformatics, etc. Technical geography is useful as a broad categorical umbrella to group these together in a way consistent with human and physical geography that is easy to understand.

The term "technical geography" is a bit of a novel word, as is GIS and the quantitative revolution, but it does exist within the peer reviewed literature as a distinction to group the novel fields of Geographic Information Science, Geoinformatics, etc.. Not many people publishing will get so theoretical as to discuss the organization of the discipline, and most literature will be much more subdivided. While the impact factor is not the highest, the word technical geography is the name of a peer-reviewed journal, Geographia Technica. The first article cited is from the first issue of the journal, where it defined itself, however the journal promotes technical geography, and the publications under this journal can be assumed to work under the framework of the term.

As a geographer that identifies a bit with this term, my issue has been that people expect us to be either physical or human in orientation. However, a large section of people I've worked with, and people I've taught, no longer identify with either of those two branches, and instead are completely focused on the spatial statistics and software side of things. I have worked with both human and physical geography, sure, but I have also worked to study the tools themselves and how they can be used to convey spatial information. The term technical geography has been proposed to capture that new subset of the discipline, and ensure that the spatial sciences don't get absorbed by other sub-displines outside of geography. Beyond that, this is how it has been taught or organized in text books. Finally, several sources have divided out the techniques of geography as the third branch, without using the term.

All models are wrong, some models are useful. The branch model is one way to think of geography, and the four traditions are another. Within the four traditions, we have the Spatial tradition, which most closely corresponds with technical geography, however the relationship is not 1 to 1. There are other ways and terms to organize the discipline, but technical geography is one that has emerged in recent years.

On the main geography page, both the branches and four traditions are included as theoretical ways to break down and understand the discipline. GeogSage (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the lengthy explanation of your perspective. I think that's a legitimate view; we just need a way to communicate in the article the novelty of the term and the scope of its usage. I had not encountered the term before you started writing about it in Wikipedia, but I didn't really care too much how widely the term was used. However, now that another editor has raised the issue, it needs to be resolved somehow. If Ionel Haidu was the first to promote the term in 2008, perhaps mentioning that in the first few sentences, instead of implying that the human/physical/technical division is long-established, would resolve the issue. Biogeographist (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. On the textbook, interesting you couldn't find a reference. Perhaps it was an edition error with the book.

When I was teaching a course, their online quiz material had the following graphic https://media.cheggcdn.com/media/4ca/4cadf7e3-a7b4-405d-a328-a2823900652f/phpX7nxGe.png. Pardon the source, it is the fastest way I can find it online.

This was what sent me down the literature review rabbit hole in the first place. I will continue to look into it.

Regardless, that book, as well as many others, are organized in such a way that split out techniques as a separate category from human and physical.

I will improve the first paragraph to reflect the novelty of the term. GeogSage (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)