Geographers Count: A Report on Quantitative Methods in Geography
Richard Harris; Tate Nicholas; Catherine Souch; Alex Singleton; Scott Orford; Chris Keylock; Claire Jarvis; Chris Brunsdon (2015). Enhancing Learning in the Social Sciences, 6(2), 43-58. DOI: 10.11120/elss.2014.00035
Abstract
This report is drawn from a project funded to better support the teachers of quantitative methods in UK social science. In it we identify the types of quantitative methods taught in the geography curricula for UK schools and universities, and discuss attitudes towards those methods amongst students and teachers. We argue that geography has benefitted from its position at the intersection of the sciences, social sciences and humanities, retaining a quantitative component. Consequently, levels of basic numeracy and data handling have remained relatively high, leaving the discipline well placed to respond to the call for greater quantitative training within the social sciences in the UK. However, we also suspect that the typical levels of quantitative training in university human geography courses are not sufficiently high to compete on the international stage. As the title suggests, our report is focused on geography. However we raise issues germane to other disciplines including what actually we mean by quantitative methods, what should be taught in a twenty-first century curriculum, how to meaningfully embed those methods in the substantive themes and teaching of a discipline, and whether more should be expected as a minimum standard of quantitative competence than the existing Quality Assurance Agency benchmarks require.
Extended Summary
This research examines the current state of quantitative methods teaching in UK geography education at both school and university levels. The study employed four surveys conducted between autumn 2012 and spring 2013, including responses from 97 schoolteachers, 800 students from 48 higher education institutions, 72 university instructors from 42 institutions, and 16 heads of teaching in university geography departments. The research also involved online reviews of university courses and GCSE and A-level Geography curricula, alongside participation in peer events organised by the Higher Education Academy and examination agencies. The study reveals that geography maintains a strong quantitative component compared to other social sciences, benefiting from its interdisciplinary position spanning physical science, social science and humanities. At school level, students encounter quantitative methods including descriptive statistics, spatial analysis techniques like Spearman’s rank correlation, and geographical information systems (GIS) technologies. Most commonly taught statistics include the mean (92% of teachers), Spearman’s rank (83%), and median (74%). However, 63% of teachers report that students experience anxiety when working with data, and only 48% of teachers enjoy teaching quantitative methods. At university level, the research finds a divide between students: 42% struggle with quantitative methods whilst 41% do not. Those who studied mathematics beyond GCSE level demonstrate greater confidence and better preparation. The study identifies several challenges including insufficient integration of quantitative methods within geography curricula, teachers’ lack of confidence with geospatial technologies, and concerns about whether current training levels are adequate for international competition. The research also highlights inconsistencies between student expectations and instructor assessments of mathematical preparedness, with 62% of instructors describing students as not well prepared. The study concludes that whilst geography has retained quantitative methods better than many social sciences, current Quality Assurance Agency benchmark statements lack ambition regarding quantitative competence requirements. The paper recommends strengthening quantitative training through better curriculum integration, improved teacher support and resources, and more explicit specification of required quantitative skills in degree programmes. This work has significant implications for educational policy, suggesting that geography is well-positioned to lead improvements in quantitative social science education, but requires enhanced support structures and clearer standards to realise this potential fully.
Key Findings
- Geography maintains stronger quantitative training than most social sciences due to its interdisciplinary position spanning physical and social sciences.
- Student confidence in quantitative methods strongly correlates with studying mathematics beyond GCSE level, creating a significant preparation divide.
- Teachers report quantitative methods are poorly integrated within geography curricula, with 63% noting student anxiety around data analysis.
- Current Quality Assurance Agency benchmark statements lack sufficient ambition regarding minimum quantitative competence requirements for geography degrees.
- Geography is well-positioned to lead quantitative social science education improvements but needs enhanced teacher support and clearer curriculum standards.
Citation
@article{harris2015geographers,
author = {Richard Harris; Tate Nicholas; Catherine Souch; Alex Singleton; Scott Orford; Chris Keylock; Claire Jarvis; Chris Brunsdon},
title = {Geographers Count: A Report on Quantitative Methods in Geography},
journal = {Enhancing Learning in the Social Sciences},
year = {2015},
volume = {6(2)},
pages = {43-58},
doi = {10.11120/elss.2014.00035}
}