By the midpoint of the 20th century, many geographers objected to the prevailing focus in the discipline on regional studies. These studies emphasized uniqueness and differences, rather than trends, patterns, and relationships that united them, and their approach was about form rather than about process. Assimilating the vast amounts of new data being published was difficult within a regional framework, and there was a growing trend toward quantitative approaches in other disciplines such as economics and psychology. During the early 1950s, the geography community began to sense that the existing (and primarily descriptive) paradigm for geographical research did not adequately explain how economic, physical, political, and social processes were organized spatially, or how they were related in terms of ecology, or how their outcomes could be used as evidence for a given time and place. All of these forces acted to spur many in geography to change their focus from descriptive (ideographic) approaches to numerical and statistical (nomothetic) approaches of organization and analysis. The nomothetic approach focused on empirical laws or models that could be applied to the wide range of phenomena and themes that geographers investigated, models requiring rigorous thinking as well as the use of sophisticated statistical techniques; hence this shift necessitated a vastly increased use of quantitative statistical methods during the 1960s. Geographical research needed a more theoretical and abstract approach that would make use of the analytical method of inquiry.
During the 1950s, some geography departments had separated from their university geology departments as a result of increased post-World War II college enrollment. Some geologists of the time viewed geography as “unscientific”; some geographers sought to persuade critics that the geography discipline was indeed scientific and that geographers were not “second-rate geologists.” Other geography departments closed during the same period. Geography was seen by some as merely “educational”—as having no research base. Thus, in part, the quantitative method was a response by geographers to legitimize their discipline.
The quantitative revolution was characterized by techniques such as descriptive statistics, inferential statistics, and mathematical equations and models, such as the gravity model for social phenomena. Techniques also included stochastic models that used concepts of probability (such as spatial diffusion processes) and deterministic models (such as the location models of Johann Heinrich von Thünen and Alfred Weber). The quantitative revolution drew on sociology from the “Chicago School”; from geometry it borrowed networks and graph theory. The changes during the quantitative revolution of the 1950s through the 1970s did not mean that mathematics had only just been introduced to geography. Mathematics had been used for centuries in geography, from the creation of map projections in cartography to the analysis of field data by William Morris Davis and others. Indeed, the phrase “quantitative revolution” is something of a misnomer; geography had been quantitative since its formal introduction during the 1800s as an academic department in universities (see Geography Departments). And the Royal Geographic Society was established as a “centre of calculation” involving the assimilation of maps, tables, figures, and statistics. Perhaps, then, the revolution was more of an “evolution”—not the introduction of numbers per se, but instead the introduction of theory; it was a “theoretical revolution.” Mathematics was now being used as a tool for statistical methodology and modeling. Statistical methods had been used in geography previously, particularly descriptive statistics, and now hypothesis testing was increasingly used; for example, chi-squared methods. Bivariate regression analysis followed, but it was not until the 1960s that such techniques as the general linear model were fully explored and accepted.
This revolution was recognized even while it was unfolding, as early as 1963, when Ian Burton published a paper entitled “The Quantitative Revolution and Theoretical Geography” in the Canadian Geographer. The statistical methods now being used in the field were for the purposes of generating and testing hypotheses using empirical data. The mathematical techniques and theorems now became used for deriving models from a set of initial abstract assumptions. Thus, statistical methods began to be used to estimate and test the significance of various sets of parameters associated with a given mathematical model; for example, gravity and distance decay models. These analytical methods of exploring geography led to the development of generalizations valid about the spatial aspects of sets of patterns, relationships, and trends embodied in a wide range of physical and cultural settings. These generalizations took the form of tested hypotheses, models, and theories. The research is assessed rigorously using statistical and other scientific methods.
Why was the quantitative revolution so significant in the history of geography? It gave the discipline a newfound sense of rigor by transforming geography into a spatial science. It began in universities but spread to primary and secondary school teaching. Moreover, it generated a sense of dynamism, self-assurance, and purpose, along with a willingness to critically appraise old methodologies, explore new ones, and develop links with other disciplines (Newby 1980). Coupled with the revolution were questions of social relevance and social responsibility, and because of this, not only was the evaluation of political and planning policies now considered within the area of the geographer’s interest, but so was the creation of policies. Geography now had the sense that it had a responsibility to help its students find their place in, and discover their contribution to, society—to help people develop a sense of awareness and values.
The shift focused studies on the behavior of individuals and small groups, fostering the growth of behavioral geography. Behavioral geography, a part of human geography, examines human behavior by studying the cognitive processes that underlie spatial reasoning and decision-making, particularly those decisions that affect geographic phenomena such as land use, transportation, and migration. Behavioral geography studies the interaction between humans and their environment. The quantitative revolution spurred an interest in human (or cultural) geography but also had an impact on the methods and models used in physical geography—from geomorphology to glaciology to climatology.
Understanding the spatial arrangement of phenomena on the surface of the Earth relies on the study of distance, and this led to Waldo Tobler’s “first law of geography”: “Everything is related to everything else, but near things are more related than distant things” (Sui 2004). The development of spatial analysis in geography led eventually to increased applications in planning, land management, health, business, and many other fields. The revolution was aided by growing computing and graphics power that led to the birth and development of spatial statistics, and of GIS and remote sensing (see Geographic Information Systems; Remote Sensing). These techniques and geotechnological tools allowed geographers for the first time to assess complex models over space and time. Because both the human and the natural environment could be examined, there was, in a sense, a joining of two distinct parts of geography, although they still maintain many unique characteristics and approaches.
After the quantitative revolution, it was clear to many in academia and society that geography was not “watered-down geology” but instead had a unique perspective to offer. Like geologists, geographers studied the land, but geographers had a keen interest in how people interacted with the land. But the quantitative revolution did not lay to rest the feeling that geographers needed to defend their discipline—these efforts continue today. Perhaps because of the continued misperception of geography in the media, in education, and by the general public, geographers often reflect upon the importance of geography in education and society—becoming in effect their own public relations organization. The quantitative revolution also caused some physical geographers in the United States to move to geology or environmental science departments, which left some geography departments to focus on human geography. It also led to an increase of specialization and, with it, a systematic geography that had numerous focused subfields and specific branches, such as soils geography. The percentage of geographical research depending on fieldwork may have declined, but fieldwork remains important among the wider body of techniques used by geographers.
Given the diversity that has always characterized the people and themes within geography, it was inevitable that some amount of backlash to the quantitative revolution would occur. Some felt that proponents of the quantitative revolution believed that questions about cultural values, beliefs, attitudes, customs, traditions, prejudice, and aesthetics should not be part of geographical research and scientific explanation of geographical patterns. Issues of poverty, racial and gender equality, war, and environment were concerns that the quantitative revolution seemed both unable and unwilling to address. Human geographers argued that the discipline should be formulated around situated knowledge based on local cultures and customs, and they refused to separate science from discourse.
Some felt that a cost of the revolution was too much emphasis on technique and a loss of seeing the “big picture” that had always been a hallmark of geographic research. Some geographers worried that quantitative techniques placed a sophisticated technical gloss on particular research studies that might lack a theoretical base. Others that were proud that geography meant studying the human and natural world simultaneously felt that quantitative techniques took the human dimension out of the discipline. The emergence of the sense of place (see Topophilia) beginning in the 1970s was one response. Positivism was another outcome of the quantitative revolution—a philosophy that all social phenomena can be explained through scientific principles and methods. Positivism came under criticism during the 1980s and 1990s, as some felt that a truly objective and neutral scientist could not exist. The response to positivism was reflected in the growth of behavioral, radical, and critical geography.
Today, geography embraces all of these approaches. The quantitative revolution provided greater theoretical awareness within the subject, but today this awareness no longer hinges on whether one embraces the ideographic or nomothetic approach. Rather, there is acknowledgement of realism, of the world as a complex place where a contextual approach to geography is important, along with a critique of grand theories and an interest in situated knowledge.
See also: Geographic Information Systems (GIS); Geography Departments; Remote Sensing; Topophilia
Inkpen, Robert J. 2005. Science, Philosophy and Physical Geography. New York: Routledge.
Livingstone, David N. 1992. The Geographical Tradition: Episodes in the History of a Contested Enterprise. Oxford: Blackwell.
Newby, P. T. 1980. “The Benefits and Costs of the Quantitative Revolution.” Geography 65 (1): 13–18.
Sui, Daniel. 2004. “Tobler’s First Law of Geography: A Big Idea for a Small World?” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 94 (2): 269–277.