Read on Twitter
This is absolutely appalling - the statement from the NSF/HEGS program is one of the most pathetically reductionist framings of both geography and science I've seen in a long time.
1/8 http://news.aag.org/2020/08/news-from-the-human-environment-and-geographical-sciences-hegs-program-at-the-national-science-foundation-nsf-september-2020/
1/8 http://news.aag.org/2020/08/news-from-the-human-environment-and-geographical-sciences-hegs-program-at-the-national-science-foundation-nsf-september-2020/
"In general, research that is predominantly post-modern, post-structural, humanistic etc., is not a good fit for NSF."
"A proposal to the HEGS Program must explain how the research will contribute to geographic and spatial scientific theory and/or methods development"
2/8
"A proposal to the HEGS Program must explain how the research will contribute to geographic and spatial scientific theory and/or methods development"
2/8
To summarize: postmodern, poststructural, humanistic, or basically non-nomathetic work doesn't contribute to geographic theory.
Well, you might say, NSF programs can set their own priorities.
They can. But these priorities move geography backward 30 years.
3/8
Well, you might say, NSF programs can set their own priorities.
They can. But these priorities move geography backward 30 years.
3/8
According to this framing, NSF/HEGS thinks the last 30 years of geographic theory didn't happen, or at least wasn't relevant to geography.
Unless is is spatial science narrowly construed, it's not geographic theory.
4/8
Unless is is spatial science narrowly construed, it's not geographic theory.
4/8
Does the program team at NSF/HEGS think that the dominance of geographers in organizations like @IPCC_CH is *despite* postmodern, poststructural, or humanistic work?
(Read the citations - the dominance is *because* of the lessons we've learned through this body of work)
5/8
(Read the citations - the dominance is *because* of the lessons we've learned through this body of work)
5/8
Does NSF/HEGS realize it has just ruled out funding more or less all of the work geography does on race, gender, identity, and power?
Are these topics not relevant to society? Is geography's leadership on these topics irrelevant?
6/8
Are these topics not relevant to society? Is geography's leadership on these topics irrelevant?
6/8
You might think I am ranting out of self-interest. Funny thing: we've now come to a place where Agencies like @USAID and large scientific assessments like @IPCC_CH are more welcoming of postmodern/poststructural approaches than @NSF HEGS.
7/8
7/8
I don't need NSF/HEGS to support my research, but a lot of other people do. This is the imposition of a narrow, deeply outdated understanding of geography on a vibrant, impactful discipline.
WALK
THIS
BACK
/fin
WALK
THIS
BACK
/fin
h/t @JeremyCrampton, who caught this before I did.
