An evaluation of the utility of the research seminar as a mechanism for communicating geographical research

and knowledge within the academic community

I

Despite being one of the most frequently used strategies in higher education, both students and lecturers find the seminar
highly problematical as a teaching-learning experience (Harwood 1987: 113)
[F]eedback gained through co-learning will reshape the nature and quality of both research and teaching environments as
we know them (Le Heron, Baker and Mcewen 2006: 77)

The diverging viewpoints of these authors reflect an essential debate: just how useful are seminars for
communicating research and knowledge? This question is addressed through reviewing two seminars,
embodying competing approaches to studying environmental concerns: the first, Political markets: recycling,
economisation and marketisation, by Professor Nicky Gregson of Durham University (hereafter known as
Seminar 1); the second, Environmental Geopolitics in the Twenty First Century, by Professor Simon Dalby of
Carleton University (hereafter known as Seminar 2).
One cannot deny the importance of environmental concerns. As a source of vibrant debate whether discussing
how the environment shapes north-south relations, or how environmental change should cultivate new industrial
activity (SauriPujol 1993) they require careful and critical analysis. Le Heron et al. (2006) note that
geographical seminars are positioned to achieve this objective through the implementation of mutual learning
relationships. But is this not a rather idealistic projection? This paper explores the value of seminars through
Foucauldian accounts of the negotiation of power, the limits of knowledge, and finally the need for
methodological transparency. Before continuing, it is constructive to review both seminars, allowing for
effective comparisons to be drawn.
In Seminar 1 Gregson presented her Waste of the World research, a five year programme funded by the
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). A self-confessed interdisciplinary social scientist, Gregson
located her interests between human geography and sociology. Accordingly, seminar material was adapted from
her paper in the interdisciplinary journal Economy and Society (suggesting relatively specialised subject
matter). Positioned around UK ship recycling, this research offered new ways of viewing waste, not as
disposable matter but as a tradable resource, generating new circuits of value in global economies. Gregson
showed how refined recycling practices could benefit other parts of the world which employ hazardous waste
management strategies. She criticised prevailing global hierarchies of knowledge; our understandings of waste
are national-specific, and increasingly untenable in other (controversial) global markets where cultural practices
differ vastly. Gregsons research was conducted on behalf of recycling businesses, an aspect she acknowledged
that the social sciences have neglected. That these businesses offered her broad access not only gave her
research huge value to policy, but also hinted at a future partnership between academia and industry.
Seminar 2 was the latest in the Tyneside Geographical Society series; a more publicised event, reflecting
broader concerns in contrast to Gregsons research specialisation in short, a blend of Dalbys research interests
over the last decade: imperial geopolitics and environmental security. Dalby explored new ways of
conceptualising climate change as a geopolitical issue. Drawing upon countless examples, from disparaging
representations in the film Children of Men, to failures of the Copenhagen 2009 conference, he reminded us that
we must adopt a universal outlook, or else continue to experience geopolitical squabbles. This, for Dalby, was
a timely intervention. With the Rio +20 environmental conference on the horizon, he implored us to be critical
of the outcome: which parties authorise the decision making; in whose interests the policies are implemented;
whether this reflects a western agenda, or global concerns; and whether the public have more control over the
outcome. Historically, we have not demonstrated an awareness, which could prevent likely causes of
environmental disruption in the future. Rather alarmingly, assumptions that resource scarcity is inevitable may
evoke a self-fulfilling prophecy of ecological imperialism.

II

Knowledge is indeed that which, next to virtue, truly and essentially raises one man above another (Addison 1837: 125)

Seminars are innately shaped by a prevailing educational discourse. Though for Barff (1995), seminars ideally
offer a means through which to informally discuss geographical interests free of constraint, often this is not the
case. Harwood (1987) acknowledges difficulty negotiating the power dynamics between the instructor and the
audience. However mundane it may seem, general discussion represent[s] an important arena where...power
relations [are] played out (Burr 1995: 147). All too often, instructors are placed on a figurative pedestal, their
ideas induc[ing] dependency or a disproportionate critical scrutiny (Harwood 1987: 119) amid the audience.
With Seminar 2 this was evident. As one of the founding fathers of critical geopolitics, Dalby has acquired
iconic status in this field; consequently one cannot help but be inspired by his work. But there was a distinct lack
of interjection from audience members, in a way that suggested mesmerisation with his ideas; students were
reluctant to present alternative ideas or evidence (ibid: 120).
Throughout the discussion, audience members were pushed to participate. Dalby reminded us that we are living
in a new geological epoch, and how this matters is tremendously important. He was thus keen to prioritise this
topic in his discussion. Yet, of those that engaged with him, the majority were lecturers and faculty members,
reflecting the notion that only Dalbys equals could raise legitimate challenges to his knowledge. This is not to
say that Dalby did not enjoy being challenged by his peers whether justifying use of apocalyptic imagery to
reflect the urgency of our situation, or indeed conceding that cosmopolitan democracy may be a solution (both
in response to questions proposed by members of Newcastle Universitys political geography department). But
dissidence from less familiar audiences offers a key means for the instructor to rearticulate central ideas, thus
fostering a better interdisciplinary understanding. With this quality removed both the audience and the instructor
lose out on essential critical dialogue, which sometimes can instigate further research opportunities.
It is therefore important to examine how this educational discourse affects the operation of the seminar. The
dominance of senior members revealed the self-reinforcing tendencies of discursive representations: though not
necessarily intended, that the roles of the inexperienced student and the well-read teacher are so effectively
performed means we come to accept these as natural. This concern is especially prevalent with undergraduates,
who do not feel their ideas are valued. The educational discourse affords staff members a more legitimate truth
than the students (Burr 1995).

III

To know that we know what we know, and that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge
(Confucius cited in Thoreau 1854: 20)

In presenting research evidence, it is important to realise that knowledge is inherently tied to an institutional
perspective (Baker 1997). Interpretations of geographical phenomena are shaped through the individual, but also
particular discursive cultures in which research is conducted. Geographical accounts are constructed through
particular meanings, representations and statements, constitutive of a geographical family. These distinct
worldviews are sometimes problematic for non-geographers, and indeed geographers in other disciplines.
Commendably, Dalby evaded this infraction. Through linking seminar material to world affairs, Dalby engaged
those unfamiliar with critical geopolitical subject matter. The audience were asked big, abstract questions: why
are environmental politics not working? Why are we fighting over the environment? In this way, he enticed
students who might prefer to be elsewhere crucial to fulfilling the seminars objective to seduce the audience
into ones worldview (Walker 2006: 437).
As geographers, realising the limits of our knowledge is paramount. We cannot assume that particular
geographic terminologies account for the world out there (Burr 1995) nor that different discourses, and the
representations they employ, cannot be complementary. Seminar 2 proved that key subject matter of critical
geopolitics was accessible to a wider geographical audience. Indeed for Le Heron et al. (2006), interdisciplinary
dialogue is crucial to fostering more sophisticated insights into phenomena we thought we had a sound
knowledge of. However, this may be easier said than done, for discourses, and the tools and concepts they
provide, restrict us as particular kinds of geographers. It is hard to break out of the discourses in which we
operate (Burr 1995).
It was difficult for Gregson to address this issue. Absorbed by her economic context, she questioned how
through reassessing certain economic behaviours we can reconceptualise a commodity chain. By its inherent
nature, this requires a more specialised economic knowledge. Admittedly there could have been more effective
ways of presenting the seminar. Though the instructor can use all means necessary to captivate and stimulate the
audience (whether employing controversial imagery or using Rudducks (1978) example playing the devils
advocate), Gregson failed to do so, and for a non-specialist audience this made key concepts difficult to
appreciate. Moreover, considering the apparent significance of the questions being asked, Gregson missed the
opportunity to effectively locate subject matter within popular debates for instance, establishing links to
Britains unhealthy out of sight, out of mind ethos.

IV

Knowledge is a treasure, but practice is the key to it (Fuller cited in Apperson 2006: 321)

Addressing the all-important issue of methodology, Richards, Watson, Bulkeley and Powell (2002) exhort
geographers to redesign their seminars so that methodology is more explicit. Seminars are supposed to aid
practical research development (ibid: 41), a quality that has been lost on the social sciences. Indeed by
incorporating theories and methods so implicitly within the seminar, academics assume they are right and
natural. It is only through questioning them that we uncover revelations about the research process for
instance, the problem of ethics behind Gregsons research. For Gregson, it was important to divorce data from
commercial sensitivity, as this project was about the reuse of metal, and not the companys practice. At the same
time, Gregson felt it not her responsibility to help these companies make money, as for her this was an academic
experiment. Complex ethical considerations are integral to conducting research; yet, had she not been prompted
they would not have come under scrutiny. With Seminar 2, methodology was also very implicit. However this
may reflect the fact that Dalby discussed more broad theoretical debates. Nevertheless, learning how he
analysed representations in Children of Men, for example, would aid those interested in discourse analysis (a
key technique employed by critical geopolitics).
In an ideal world seminars can foster dissertation ideas, aiding those unsure of how to connect research ideas to
subject matter (Richards et al. 2002). However according to Jenkins (2000), there is a vast gulf between
requirements to conduct original research, and the educational paradigm within which budding geographers
learn their trade; this still focuses on what students know, rather than how they use that knowledge (Seltzer
and Bentley 1999: 9). Considering that doing good research is imperative to performing as a geographer,
methodological and theoretical concerns should be located more centrally within seminars (Jenkins 2000). It is
only through understanding the philosophies in which we position ourselves and the world we live in, that we
can begin to fully embrace, or indeed resist or question, dominant methodological approaches. With this in
mind, geographical research is tied to the knowledge economy what knowledge is perceived to be important
and how it is uncovered. These cultural trends shape our understanding of doing research (Jenkins 2000).
Gregsons work was funded by the ESRC, a research institution on which many academics depend for funding;
with this role comes the power to say which practices are permissible and which not. Hence, what we perceive
to be axiomatic is inherently institutionally embedded. In our haste for funding we neglect to question whether
we can alter the structures in which we operate.


V

Knowledge has to be improved, challenged, and increased constantly, or it vanishes (Drucker cited in Pearce 2010: 35)

Admittedly, the Foucauldian perspective employed is an extreme frame of reference; however this is a
deliberate act, which hopes to elucidate the areas where seminars can improve. Though the diversity of
approaches to conducting seminars is evident, the paper has shown that there are common themes to be
addressed. This section brings these themes together, asking how we can reassess the potential and contribution
of seminar practice (Le Heron et al. 2006).
The issue of power dynamics is one for the utmost concern, for over time we accept these relationships as
natural. That these dynamics are not immediately recognised limits our sense of what is possible during seminar
interactions. Gregson attempted to overcome this factor: from the outset she asserted that this was to be an
informal atmosphere, allowing for exchanges and audience participation (she even acknowledged that she was
hoping for a smaller room, thus limiting the extent to which power could play a role). But whatever the physical
setting, there will always be this intangible barrier between instructor and audience. How then, can students
become more active, independent and expressive when discussing research issues and evidence (Harwood
1987)?
One of the ways to overcome this problem is to instil more confidence in the student, and their belief in what
they can achieve. The ability to effectively apply concepts and theories will encourage students to delve deeper
into seminar material (Barff 1995: 305). This can be aided by embracing methodology more explicitly within
the seminar, demonstrating how to apply specific theories and research strategies to appropriate subject matter
(Bhaskar 1989). Moreover, uncertainties around the research process should not be glossed over, but located as
central points of reference in the seminar. Here Gregson deserves credit: through discussing her own doubts
surrounding her nuanced approach (for instance whether working with business could lead the project to
unravel), she painted a realistic picture of the messy and iterative nature of doing research.
Yet, until geographical language and perspectives are combined better with other disciplinary fields, the impact
of these seminars across the academic community will be limited. For academics, there is a certain
unwillingness to subordinate to a collective (albeit an important connection, whether this reflects a sense of
elitism is beyond the scope of this papers discussion). By isolating specific geographical knowledges, we fail to
realise their applicability on a wider scale. As already noted, Dalby should be praised for not alienating the
audience with intellectual jargon, and this should be the precedent for all seminars which aim to maximise their
community impact.
It would seem then, that both Seminar 1 and Seminar 2 have their positive and negative aspects. Both can learn
from each other in order to better understand how to communicate geographical research. Dalby was too central
a figure in his research seminar, and this limited the possibilities for critical dialogue. Yet, he adopted a better
inter-disciplinary approach than Gregson, who, although operating within a more informal atmosphere, alienated
those who did not have an economic background. Admittedly, both seminars could have benefitted from more
explicit reference to the methods used. Indeed if geographers want to improve their experience of research
seminars, then this reflexive strategy, which takes into account the needs of the instructor and the audience, is
necessary (Richards et al. 2002). With this feedback, the seminar that Le Heron et al. (2006) envision may
become reality.






















References
Addison, J. (1837) The Works of Joseph Addison (New York, Harper & Brothers)
Apperson, G.L. (2006) The Wordsworth Dictionary of Proverbs (Hertfordshire, Wordsworth Editions Limited)
Baker, R. (1997) Landcare: policy, practice and partnerships, Australian Geographical Studies, 35, 1, pp.61-73
Barff, R. (1995) Small classes and research experience for new undergraduates: a firstyear seminar programme
in a geography department, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 19, 3, pp.299-305
Bhaskar, R. (1989). Reclaiming Reality (London, Verso)
Burr, V. (1995). An Introduction to Social Constructionism (London, Routledge)
Harwood, D. (1987) Teaching controversy by seminar: An example in quaternary geomorphology, Journal of
Geography in Higher Education, 11, 2, pp.113-124
Jenkins, A. (2000) The Relationship between Teaching and Research: Where does geography stand and
deliver?, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 24, 3, pp.325-521
Le Heron, R, Baker, R and Mcewen, L. (2006) Co-learning: Re-linking Research and Teaching in Geography,
Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 30, 1, pp.77-87
Pearce, C.L. (2010) Leading knowledge workers: beyond the era of command and control in Pearce, C.L,
Maciariello, J.A. and Yamawaki, H. (Eds.) The Drucker Difference (New York, McGraw Hill)
Richards, K, Watson, E, Bulkeley, H and Powell, R. (2002) Some Ideas and Reflections on Teaching 'Ideas' in
Geography, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 26, 1, pp.33-47
Rudduck, J. (1978). Learning through Small Group Discussion (Guildford, University of Surrey, Society for
Research into Higher Education)
Sauri-Pujol, D. (1993) Putting the environment back into human geography: a teaching experience, Journal of
Geography in Higher Education, 17, 1, pp.3-9
Seltzer, T and Bentley, K. (1999). The Creative Age: knowledge and skills for the new economy (London,
Demos)
Thoreau, H.D. (1854) Walden: Volume I (Cambridge, The Riverside Press)
Walker, R. (2006) Teaching (Political) Economic Geography: Some Personal Reflections, Journal of
Geography in Higher Education, 30, 3, pp.427-327