Writing - the second meeting & peer review

Alright! I'm back from the peer reviewing session we had in the Academic Writing support group. This was the first time I could make it to the meeting – luckily, this was only the second meeting anyway – so I was a little surprised by how small the group is. During the opening session, I felt like so many people said they would like to join the Academic Writing support group, and yet there were only five of us present. Well, that allowed us to review our summaries one by one, in a way that everyone got their turn, and we still had time to discuss what plans we have for the future meetings in the end.

I'll start by talking about the others' summaries. I really liked most of them and I didn't actually have much to criticize; they were all written very professionally and while they were all varying in length, I feel like overall, this was a very successful task from all of us.

Now, about my summary. I got a lot of compliments: the length was good, the flow was good, and it was easy to read and to understand even without knowing much about Geography. However, there were some words that I could change into more professional (or academic) ones, like the world "bigger" into "larger" or changing "looks back on" into "analyses".

The biggest problem in my summary was the second to last paragraph, which is something I totally agree with. When writing the summary, I was hesitant about leaving it in, because I thought it didn't exactly fit into the rest of the text. But, at the same time, the things that I speak of in it, were in a very big role in the article itself and I felt like I couldn't leave it out of the summary completely.

I will be fixing it though, as well as any other mistakes that were pointed out, and then I will send it to the teacher, who will review it again and return it with more feedback. I'll add the final version of my summary to this post when the time comes!

Added 02.10.2024

Here is the fully edited version of my original summary. Now, I hope that all the grammar mistakes have been fixed and that some of the parts I felt uncertain about are a bit clearer. It's been through a review twice now, so fingers crossed!

In this article, David SG Thomas analyses Geography's evolution as a discipline, how it fits amongst other natural sciences and how geographers themselves view the science. The article is based on his experience and observations as a physical geographer over the past couple of decades and, as Thomas himself admits too, is biased towards the fields he is most familiar with.

Geography can be viewed as an ever-changing discipline that has had quite a difficult time establishing itself as a renowned science. In the past, there were three major parts in Geography: physical, human and regional. The two first ones are still largely acknowledged as the main directions of the discipline, while regional geography has been on the decline since the 1950s.

Lately environmental geography has risen in popularity, as it combines both physical and human geography, and attempts to tackle the rising problem of keeping Earth healthy. At the same time, environmental geography has helped to make geography more understandable and accessible to a wider audience. According to Thomas, it might even help Geography acquire a better footing and a more demanding presence, much needed of a widely acknowledged academia.

Over the years, many departments and schools of Geography have become linked to other disciplines and lost the word 'geography' from the title, that space often being taken up by environment instead. This gives rise to the concern of diluting the discipline and losing the principles that make it. However, as Thomas says, it also speaks of Geography's flexibility and how well it can be practiced within other disciplines. By becoming an irreplaceable part of other sciences, Geography guarantees its continuation and growth.

Thomas uses his experience in the field of geomorphology as an example of how all sciences must be built on a solid base. The term geomorphology is being used less and less over time, and it is not a sub-discipline acknowledged by a large audience. However, when dealing with places where critical problems arise, it is likely that geomorphologists are some of the first people present. This is, as Thomas argues, because most of the data used by larger parties is collected by sub-disciplines, making them invaluable in any form of research. This applies not only to geomorphology, but all other sub-disciplines in science.

Although Thomas expresses concern over Geography's inability to become as established as other natural sciences, he concludes the article by stating that he believes in Geography's continuum. Through its history of changing and flexibility, Geography has all that it takes to become a major factor in solving the crises the world is now facing. 

References:

Thomas, David SG. 2022. Geography needs science, science needs Geography. Environment and planning. Vol.1. Issue 1. Pp. 41-51.