22 Sep NSF and the struggle for academia

In the last Congressional session, Geography and Spatial Sciences DDRI faced major cuts. Viewed as un-scientific, geographers faced a backlash to their social science foundations. In response, the AAG stepped in to point to GIS as our contribution to science.

It created a flurry in Geography, drawing sharp criticism for the lack of support for the social science-ness of human geography. Many of us wept – if not physically, then at least metaphorically. The backlash was not about pitting GISers against the human geographers.

In fact, i daresay we many of us, felt that we were never at odds. We are so very dependent on each other. Rather, many of us felt sold-out and under threat for what we believe to be equally important work. Now that i am preparing my second round of NSF proposal material (that’s second submitted round, but the fifth iteration and something like 48 different drafts), i’m feeling the pressure to fit neatly into a rubric of science-ness that is both a-political and unbiased.

We academics work very hard to find our voice – to proclaim who we are and then to support and undergird our convictions.

This process of NSF grant proposal writing has been a (mis)-education of Tish – a struggle of wills and theoretical frames. My last submission was given high marks in its relevance and importance, but was dinged heavily for being “too theoretical.” I get it. I get lost in my head all the time. But in struggling to find a clear and concise voice (one chair recommended i read “a couple chapters of Hemingway” and write like him), i lost my geography.

I just realized that my proposal is very un-geographic. I could probably be more easily funded under an NIH grant than i could be a geography grant. This is not a slight against NIH or the biomedical sciences / public health. It’s a frustration with the need to be “scientific” in the driest sense of the word. Is this where Geography is being pushed? Are we having to sell our souls to keep the interest of Congress and of funders?

What are we, if not our rich and colorful history of important theoretical contributions? Case studies are our grounding (quite literally) that draw us into the reality of living and out of our heads, but the theory is the soul of our case studies. What makes geography – all forms of geography – so powerful and rich is our ability to bring together the very practicalities of the every-day in conversation with the theoretical. It is our ability to tell every day stories that enrich our understanding of the world (and its workings) and to weave theoretically rich narratives about the every-day that makes us Geography (with a capital “G”).

I love our discipline. I (like most academics) feel that we bring something important to the table. And i feel that way about all other fields. But maybe that’s my shortcoming – i can see room at the table for everyone. We all bring incredibly important aspects of living into the light of discussion – and we do it in such incredibly diverse ways. I think, in many ways, that is the very essence of being… our ability to narrate this crazy thing called Life in our unique ways…