ackerman 1963 where is a research frontier

8/3/2019 Ackerman 1963 Where is a Research Frontier

1/13

Where is a Research Frontier?Author(s): Edward A. AckermanReviewed work(s):Source: Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 53, No. 4 (Dec., 1963), pp.429-440Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of the Association of American GeographersStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2561684 .

Accessed: 12/11/2011 09:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. andAssociation of American Geographers are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access toAnnals of the Association of American Geographers.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancishttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaghttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2561684?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2561684?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaghttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis


2/13

ANNALS of theAssociation of American GeographersVolume 53 December 1963 Number4

WHERE IS A RESEARCH FRONTIER?1 2EDWARD A. ACKERMANCarnegie nstitutionf Washington

.. . take warningfromothersof what may be to your own advantage."Terence 185-159 B.C.), HeautonTimoroumenos,ct I, Sc. 2, line 36.SCIENCE IN THE LAST FIFTY YEARSI was born ntheyear1911. The halfcenturysince that time has contained some of themost tremendous vents n the history f thehuman race. Among them have been twoworldwars of unprecedented xtent nd vio-lence,the near doublingof the total popula-

1Addressgivenby theHonorary resident f theAssociationfAmerican eographerst ts59thAnnualMeeting, enver,Colorado, eptember , 1963.2 Thispapermakesnopretenseocoverage f all theways in whichgeographymay be viewed,or prac-ticed. It discussesgeographys a science. There sequal ustificationor lacing omegeographiccholar-ship mong hehumanities,s WilliamL. Thomashasnoted n a letter o me (June24, 1963). If such adistinctions needed, nemight ollowHowardMum-fordJonesn hisdefinition:The humanitiesre ...a group fsubjects evoted o thestudy fmanas abeingother hana biologicalproduct nd differentfrom socialor ociologicalntity"HowardMumfordJones,WhatAre heHumanities?,"neGreat ociety[1959],p. 17). Insofars we encounterpatialdistri-bution ntities otamenable o themethodsfscience,and of nterestoanyserious cholar, ursubject oes

havea humanisticontent. utonemay lsoquestion,as some scientistso, the appropriatenessf thesedi-viding inesbetween cienceand thehumanities.AsMarston Bates provocativelyhas said, " . . . science isonly ne ofman's pproaches o theunderstandingfthe universe nd ofhimself.By understanding,. .I mean ryingo make enseoutoftheapparenthaosof the outerworld n terms f thesymbol ystems fthehumanmind. Thismight e consideredhe func-tion fall art; nd nthat ase I amled,half eriously,to call science he characteristicrtform f Westerncivilization . . the sciences and the humanitiesformfalsedichotomy,ecause science s oneof thehumani-ties" (MarstonBates,"Summary emarks: Process,"Man's Role n ChangingheFace oftheEarth" 1956],p. 1139). Compare also William Shockley, ". . . thepractice f science s an art" Science,Vol. 140 [1963],p. 384).

tion of the world,3 he rise of thegreatCom-munist states, and other events profoundlychanging the course of human history. Butpreeminent mong all are the growthof sci-ence and thegrowth fman'scapacity oapplyhis mind to the problems of learning anddiscovery.Manystrikingxamplesmight e offered ythe changes withinscience,and the changeswrought y science, n these 50 years. To me,a moststrikingllustrations a comparison four knowledge of the universe n 1911 andnow. In 1911 what men knew of space wasconfined o ourowngalaxy. Our solarsystemwas thoughtto be near the center of thatgalaxy,whose shape was only dimlyconjec-tured. Now we know that the sun and itssecondarysatellite, he earth,are far out onone armof our vast,beautiful, piral galaxy.We knowalso that thereare at least a billionsuch galaxieswithin he space our telescopeshave penetrated.Furthermore, e have seenthephotographic ecord ofobjects fivebillionlight-yearsway,moving wayfrom s at halfthespeedof ight.These 50yearshavebroughta moreprofound hange in ourknowledge ofthe cosmos than was achieved in all man'spreviousexistence.Although stronomymaystretch urmindsmost of all, there are otherexamples of ad-vances in our learning nd knowledge,of thedeepestmeaning nd mostcomprehensivem-pact. Among them we might mentionthe

3Estimatedmid-1963worldpopulations: .25 bil-lion;1910 populations .7 billion 1963, extrapolatedfromUnitedNationsdata; 1910 extrapolationsromestimatesyW. F. Willcox ndA. M. Carr-Saunders).429


3/13

430 EDWARDA. ACKERMAN Decembergeneral theory f relativity,hedismemberingof the atom by nuclearphysics, he discoveryofthe biochemicalbasis ofheredity,hedevel-opmentsin engineering hat made possibletheManhattan roject nd theorbiting fmenin space, and the chemical discoveriesanddevelopmentsn social organization hathavepromotedthe world populationexplosion. Ithas been a truly pochal period,without nyequal in history.Not least has been thefinalworld acceptance of science as a tremendoussocial force.As one views this panoramaofglorious ci-entificachievement n the last 50 years,hecannotfail to be impressedbytwo things: heunityof scientific ffort s it progresses; ndgreat differences n the rates of progressamongthe subdivisions f science.The first observation was skillfullyde-scribed by the biologist Frank R. Lillie in1915. "Scientific iscoverys a truly pigeneticprocess n whichthegerms fthought evelopin thetotalenvironmentf knowledge. Inves-tigationof particularproblemscannot be ac-celeratedbeyondwell-definedimits;progressin each dependson themovement fthe wholeof science."4Lillie's observationmust be consideredinthe lightofthe second point, he differentialsof progressamong separate subfields of thescientificommunity.he progress f"scienceas a whole" at any giventime n largemeasureis theprogress f a relatively ewsubjectswithgrowing points. As growing-point alientsmove,theyfurnish roundforpractitionersnotherdisciplines o stand on and in turnpushinto new territory. his is what makes inter-communicationmongthe sciences so impor-tant, nd evenmoretheproper hoiceof thosewithwhom we communicate. To paraphrasean ancientobservation, veryscientist tandson the shoulders fgiants. But one might ddthat t is importanto stand on the shouldersof the rightgiant. The selection s as impor-tantas the standing. In the period between1910and the mid-1940's, hysics nd themath-ematicaldisciplines tood out as examplesofthe giants.5 Chemistrywas of shortersta-turein this comparison, iologyconsiderably

4FrankR. Little, The History f theFertilizationProblem,"cience,Vol.43 (1916), pp.39-53.5 The above comparisons notintended o reflectpopular, r evenprofessional,valuationsfthetime.

shorter,nd geology ess visible. Comparisonsamong the social sciencesweremoredifficult,but perhaps anthropology, sychology, ndeconomics deserve some distinction ortheiraccomplishmentsn the pre-WorldWar IIperiod. However,thedifferencesmong sub-groups withina fieldwere in most cases aspronounced as differences between majorfields.

THE PLACE OF GEOGRAPHY IN THEADVANCING FRONT

We are, naturally, specially interested nthe place that geography occupied in thisadvancingfront f science. There is no reasonto avoid frankness. am sure thatall but afewhere would agree that our contributionshave been modestthusfar.We have notbeenon the forward alients n science, nor,untilrecently, ave we been associatedcloselywiththosewho have. The reasonsare not difficultto find. Duringthe early partof this50-yearperiod, in the 'teens and early twenties, urclosest associations were with history andgeology. Geological studyofthatperiod, andof the thirties,was not among the inspiringgrowing oints nscience. The historynd thegeology onnections id notcorrect hepredis-position f ourscholarsof the teensand earlytwentiesto the deceptive simplicity f geo-graphicdeterminism.This was perhaps oneofthe astappearancesoftheNewtonianviewoftheworld.As determinism egan to fade and inde-pendent geographydepartmentsporadicallyappeared in thiscountry, eography urned oassociation with the social sciences of theperiod. "Possibilism"n man'srelationto theearthtook theplace ofdeterminism. ecauseof the limitations f the social sciences andhistory t the time, these associationswereonly slightlymoreproductive ources of nspi-ration than geology. It was onlymuch later,indeed in the early fifties,when associationwith the social sciences bore its soundestfruits orgeography.Thiswas in themethodsdescended frommathematical tatistics, irstapplied in biometrics,anthropometry,ndGeneralappreciation f events n mathematicsndphysics uring he ate thirties,orexample, id notcomeuntil hemid-forties.et theyweresources fbasic thoughton methods that have affected llsciences.


4/13

1963 WHERE IS A RESEARCH FRONTIER? 431econometrics.Their full applicationhas notyetrun ts course.INDEPENDENCE AND SEPARATION OF GEOGRAPHY

I began my professionalnterestn geogra-phy at a time when the old mooringstogeologywerealmost evered. The groping orsolid footing mong the social sciences waswell underway.6The geographerswhoturnedin the direction f the social sciences made aprescient hoice of direction, ut the difficul-tiesconfrontingswereenormous, onsideringthe methods henat our disposal. In the faceof those difficulties,t was onlynatural thatwe became somewhat ntrospective.We triedto build a platform, s it were, from ur ownmaterials and to anchor it ourselves.7 Thissearch for a professional identitywas, ofcourse,foundduringotherperiods n the his-toryof geography. It goes back at least tothe 19thcenturyGermangeographers.AlfredHettner and others in Germany undertookinfluential tudies fromthe early 1900's on-ward. But the succession of methodologicalappraisals in the United States that com-mencedwith Harlan Barrows' "Geography sHuman Ecology"8 n 1923 and continuedfornearlyforty earsmustcertainly ankas oneof the most ntensive ffortsowardthis end.Our searchfor professionaldentity ed toan intellectual ndependence and eventuallyto a degreeof isolation gainst whicha num-ber oftherisingyoungergeneration f geog-raphershave now reacted. In our search fora solid footing, meaningful mage of our-selves, many of us tended to separate our-selves from other sciences. Our principalinterdisciplinaryommunicationswere withother sciences which also had problems ofisolation, ike culturalanthropologynd geo-

6 Cf. J. M. Blaut, Objective ndRelationship,"heProfessional eographer,ol. 14 (1962), pp. 1-7. "Inthisrespectwe behaved ikethesocial sciences:ourphilosophicalweakness, ike theirs, ad its roots nchronicallynsolvedproblems.Their problems on-cerned alues, auses, nd socialwholes.Ourproblem,then as now, concerned he natureof our subjectmatter."7The work fCarlSauer nd the Californiachool"in collaboration ith ultural nthropologyas an ex-ception.8 Harlan H. Barrows, "Geographyas HumanEcology,"Annals, Association f AmericanGeogra-phers,Vol.13 (1923), pp. 1-14.

morphology. n effect,ome of us saw geog-raphyas an end in itselfrather than in thebroader context s a contributor o a largerscientificgoal. Perhaps this is the fate ofmany specializations.Insistenceon the independence nd separa-tion in the 1930's and 1940's may seem ashockinglyncorrect tatement o some ofyou.Did not geography alone recognize its rela-tions to both the physical sciences and thesocial sciences? Did notgeographydeal con-stantlywiththe data accumulated hrough heefforts f otherdisciplines? Indeed, was notgeography even alert to analogous methodsof inquiryfrom other disciplines? One cancite such major statements n the field as

Barrows' Geography s HumanEcology," ndSauer's "The Morphologyof Landscape"9 asproof of this alertness. But I must notethat both these statements ame in the mid-twenties, nd thereafter or at least 25 yearsan atmosphere of separatismand indepen-dence characterized he profession.10 urther-more, morphologywas not a particularlyhappy choice as an analogue method, nd thehintgiven by Barrows on ecology was neverseriouslyfollowedup by his colleagues. Forscience at large, morphologyalready wasbecoming a somewhatsterileconcept whenwe took to it, and the analyticalmethods ofthe twentiesand thirtieswere not yet equalto themultivariateroblems f ecology.11Theconceptthatbecame dominant mong us wasthat of "areal differentiation,"erived fromHettner and introduced n the United Statesby Sauer.12 This concept favored (althoughdid not demand ogically) a goal of nvestiga-I Carl 0. Sauer,"The Morphologyf Landscape,"

Universityf California ublicationsn Geography,Vol.2 (1925), pp.19-53.10Thedrive or he ndependentepartmentypifiedthis tmospheret thetime.Again he nterestf theCaliforniaroup nculturalnthropologyaybe citedas anexception.11Barrows ad true nsight n stressingplace rela-tions," uthisconcept fgeographys human cologysetforthooambitious field.Neitherualitative orquantitativemethods f thetimeofferedmuch solidground or xploitingheecological oncept.Atleastin retrospect e can see the ecologicalconceptofBarrows' ime s incompletelyormedi.e., the djust-ment f norganismoenvironment).thas nowbeenreplaced y the muchmorepowerfulmonisticonceptofan ecosystem,n whichorganismnd environmentare one nteractingntity.12 Sauer, p.cit., . 20.


5/13

432 EDWARD A. ACKERMAN Decembertion ndependent f thegoalsofother ciences.The same mightbe said of another mportantconcept in the field,that of areal functionalorganization, ntroducedby Platt.13 On theotherhand,the workofSauer andhisdisciplesdid find ommongroundwithcultural nthro-pology,but it also was a somewhat solatedscienceuntil the 1940's.In our desire to make our declaration ofindependenceviable,we neglected omaintaina view of the advancingfront f science as awhole. We acted as thoughwe did notbelievein anythingmore than the broadest gener-alities about the universalityof scientificmethod. In effectwe neglectedto appraisecontinuously he most profoundcurrent ofchange in our time. We neglected an axiom:The course of science as a whole determinesthe progressof its parts, n theirgreater orlesserdegrees.

INFLUENCE OF MATHEMATICAL STATISTICSWhat did we miss in the coursewe took?For one thing,we missed earlycontactwithdevelopments n mathematical tatistics, ndearly touch with the antecedents of systemsanalysis. The scholarswhose thought nflu-

enced life (and social) systems conceptsgreatly, ikeR. A. Fisherand Karl Pearsoninbiology and anthropology,Alfred Lotka inbiology,Sewall Wright n genetics, nd L. L.Thurstone n psychology,were all active inthe 1920's and 1930's. The flowering f theapplicationof theirtechniques and conceptsawaited the availabilityof electronic ompu-ters and mathematicalprogress in the late1940's and early 1950's, but they providedforceful rganizing dvances in geneticsandotherbiological fields, n physical anthropol-ogy,demography, sychology,nd economicsfrom 5 to 25 yearsearlierthan n geography.We thusmissedfor a periodthe new thoughttheirtechniquesgenerated,because the tech-niques were essentialkeysto communicationof thatthought.14

18 See R. S. Platt, ield Studyn American eogra-phy,Universityf Chicago DepartmentfGeographyResearchPaper 61 (Chicago: 1959), especiallypp.302-51.14 An interestingemonstrationf thesetechniquesfallingn sterile roundngeographyccurredn 1938,when hemathematicaltatistician . G. Kendallpre-sentedhis paper "The Geographical istributionf

Within helast decade we have made goodour initial failure o respond to these moderntechniques. We have even felt the influenceof physics, s a fewhave experimentedwiththe applicationof physical analogues to thephenomena of distribution.Althoughnot afew among us have been uneasy abouttheirmeaning, hese techniques alreadyhaveproved theirpower. Mathematical nalysis sa recognizedpartof nstructionnalertdepart-mentsof geography.We can onlywelcomethe growthof these methods,because theyhave been a notable and needed stimulus othe rigorof our thinking.Even more impor-tant, they ncrease our capacityto communi-cate preciselywithworkers n otherfieldsofscience.Is the mathematicization f our disciplinetheway of our future? n a sense, yes. Theyearis not far offwhen a geographerwill beunable to keep abreast of his field withouttrainingnmathematics.Furthermore, e willfind t increasingly ifficult o conduct mean-ingful research without such training. Buthere we must entermore than a word of cau-tion. There is a great deal more to sciencethan the application of mathematics, r ofrigorous ogic. We musttake care to examinecarefully he paths of research down whichour computerized mathematical colleagueslead us, or perhapspush us. The danger ofa dead end and nonsense s not removedby"hardware" nd symbolic ogic. Beforewe gotoo farwe shouldsee what else there s aboutscience at large that produces its "growingpoints." What determines owproductive heuse of statistics nd hardware will be? In afew otherfields cientists re facingproblemsof thiskindthat are somewhatout of controlCropProductivityn England" efore heRoyalStatis-ticalSociety Journal oyal tatisticalociety, ol.102[1939], pp. 21-62). This studywas an analysisofcovariancemong encrops nthe48 English ounties.Besides he nterestingirect onclusions e drew,Ken-dall made some provocative bservationsbout thesimilarityfstatisticalechniques or tudying psy-chologicalproblem nd forstudying geographicalproblem.However, he two geographers resent, .DudleyStamp nd E. C. Willats, evoted heir om-ments nKendall's apermainlyo tsshortcomingsninterpretinghe bservableandscape. So far s I know,therewas nosequel ngeographicaltudy oKendall'sinterestingxploration. am indebted o BrianJ.L.Berry or allingmy ttentionoKendall's aper.


6/13

1963 WHERE IS A RESEARCH FRONTIER? 433today. Recent attention o the scientific artof space explorations an illustration.15

NONQUANTIFYING ATTRIBUTES OF SCIENCECan we make any observationabout the

methods of science at large that will enableus to keep needed mathematicization ndercontrol?Thereare a greatmanydefinitions fscience. I amsure thatmanyofyouarefamil-iarwithmostof them. One definition like s:"Science is a quest forregularity nderlyingdiverse events." This quest proceeds throughcareful, erifiable bservation nd description;through the construction f hypotheses, toproject reality nto the unknown; testingofthehypotheses hrough he conductofexperi-ment or further bservation;'6replicationofexperimentnd observation; nd thebuildingof a body of theory romverifiedhypotheseswhich in turn becomes the basis for newhypotheses,nd new observationsnd experi-ments. Mathematicaland statistical nalyseshave found their mportant lace in thispro-cedure because they aid in obtaining exactobservation,nd because they id enormouslyin designinghypotheses that lead into theunknown.I might top here, and youwould recognizethisas a portrait f science. However, t is aportrait nly of its skeleton.Three importantadditionsprovide the all-important ife anddirectionthat have figuredwherever greatstrides n science have been made. I havealready mentioned one: cross-disciplinarycommunication.The second is what some men havedescribed as the intuitiveside of science.Warren Weaver has said, ". . . science is, atitscore,a creative ctivity fthe human mindwhichdependsupon luck,hunch, nsight,ntu-ition, magination, aste,and faith, ust as doall thepursuits f thepoet,musician,painter,essayist, rphilosopher."'7

15 Some cientistsear hat pace"hardware"scaus-ing an inefficient,ven dangerous,misallocationfhigh-qualitycientificalent n theUnited tates. SeeP. H. Abelson,Testimony eforethe UnitedStatesSenateCommitteenAeronauticalnd Space Scienceshearingsn NationalGoals nSpace,June 0, 1963.)16 The geographer ay bservehroughieldnvesti-gation;he may experiment iththe use of statisticalmodels or idealizedreality).17 WarrenWeaver, "Science, Learning and theWholeofLife,"Address t70thAnniversaryonvoca-tion,Drexel nstitutef Technology, ecember, 961.

But there s more to it than this. The mindof the scientist, o less than thatof the poetor musician, must be structured y thoughtand experiencebefore t reaches the creativestage. Some personsare able so to structuretheir mindsmore easily than others. It hasbeen said, forexample,that rvingLangmuiralways saw matter, f whateverform,wher-everhewas, n terms f ts molecular tructure,thus opening the way automaticallyforhismany remarkable insights. Every scientistdoes this in some degree. There is no doubtthat thereis such a thingas "thinking eo-graphically."To structure ismind n terms fspatialdistributions'8nd theircorrelationssa most important ool for anyone followingour discipline. The more thebetter. If thereis any really meaningfuldistinction mongscientists,t is in thismental structuring. tis one reason why we should approach theimposition f analogues fromother fields, sfrom hysics,with he utmost are. The mentalsubtratefor nspiration oes differ romfieldto field.A third mportantngredient f science is ahighlydeveloped sense of problem. In mypleasant and valued associationwithProfessorCharles Colby at the University f Chicago,I can remember is frequent eference o thecultivation f sucha sense. I now realize howwise and perceptivehis advice was. In myduties of the past five years at the CarnegieInstitutionfWashington, have had tomain-tain currentknowledge about research inseveralbiological and physical ciences. In allof themthis sense of problem is verykeenwhere outstandingprogress is being made.Herbert Simon has observed that science isessentially roblem olving.19his observationis so important hat t deserves fewwords ofelaboration.A sense of problem,at its mostmeaningful,s really a sense of the hierarchyof problems n a broad field,and possibly nall science.Everymajorfield with which am familiarhas an easily recognizedoverriding roblem.

18 By "spatialdistributions,"earth-spatialistribu-tions" s, of course,understood ere. They are theparallel fdistributionalssociationsn other ciences.19Herbert imon, heNew ScienceofManagementDecision (New York:1960), p. 34. Thereare othersimilartatements,ikethat f T. S. Kuhn,whocalls t"puzzle-solving"The StructurefScientific evolu-tions Chicago:1962],pp. 35 ff.).


7/13

434 EDWARDA. ACKERMAN DecemberThe overridingproblems always lie behindthefrontiersf nvestigation.heyare remark-ably few, and all fade into infinityn theirultimateforms. ndeed, the overriding rob-lems of all science may be reduced to four:(1) the problemof the particulatestructureof energyand matter,which physicstreats;(2) the structure nd contentof the cosmos,which stronomy,strophysics,nd geophysicstreat; 3) theproblemoftheorigin ndphysi-ological unity of life forms; and (4) thefunctioningf systems hat include multiplenumbers of variables, especially life systemsand social systems.Othersmight xpress heseproblemsdifferently,ut I believe that eachofthem s a beacon orienting esearchon thefrontiers f the rapidlyadvancingfields.Beneath each overriding roblemare majorsecond-levelproblems, and finallythe prob-lems translatabledirectly nto experiment robservational nvestigation.For example, amajorsecondaryproblem related to the over-riding one of the origin of life is the de-criptionof life in pre-Cambrian imes. It istranslated directly into a search in pre-Cambrianrocks or tablechemical ompoundsknownto be indicatorsof life. In this wayPhilip Abelson and his collaborators at theCarnegie Institution ave produced firm vi-dence of the existence of life at least 2.6billionyearsago.The same relation among the hierarchyof problems can be seen in growing-pointresearch in astronomy, eophysics, biology,and elsewhere. do not mean that ll researchis so organized, or is distinguishedby thesense ofproblem. Most commonly n appre-ciation ofthehierarchy f problems s sharedby relatively ew in each field. It is indeedone of themosttroublesome uestions facingthe administrator f public researchfunds nthenationat thepresenttime.

GEOGRAPHY IN THE MIRROR OF ALL SCIENCESBynow mytheme should be obvious: Thegeographer houldseek hispersonal dentitynthe mirror rovidedby all sciences. How isthis ranslatedntofuture eographic rogress?The development f a professionaldentityngeographyhas two aspects: thefuture evel-opment of the theoreticalstudy of spatialdistributions;nd a reappraisalof the over-riding problem recognizedby our discipline.

The first,urther evelopment fthetheoret-ical, is our true nnerrefuge s specialists. Itis whathelpsto structure hemind "geograph-ically." The more rigorouslyhe structuringsdone, themore likely hedisciplinewill havea cutting edge that places it on a researchfrontier.However unrelatedand esoteric itmay seem,the cultivation f theoretical tudyof spatial distributionss basic.If we have had any generally acceptedoverridingproblem in the past, it is arealdifferentiation,conceptwidelyaccepted andusefullyemployed,particularly y Americanand German geographers. Its rationale hasbeen ably presentedand skillfully efendedbyRichardHartshorne. His most recentdefi-nition f areal differentiations the "accurate,orderly, nd rationaldescriptionnd interpre-tationof the variable characterof the earthsurface"20till tandsas a usefulgeneral guideto geographicmethod. A second preoccupa-tion, but less widely held, was with thegeographical expressionof cultureprocesses.I shall refermainly o areal differentiationntheremarks fthenextfew paragraphs.

A NEW LOOK AT GEOGRAPHY SOVERRIDING PROBLEM

Ata timewhen thesocial sciences providedus with very little firm assistance, and wewere stressing ur independence, real differ-entiationof the earth'ssurfacedid serve asan overridingproblem. It is time that werecognizethe limitations f this concept. Dowe need somethingmore for a purposefulselection of research problems eading us tosignificant esearchfrontiers?f we look atthe concept of areal differentiationarefully,we see that tdid notoften ead us to commongroundwiththeother ciences. We see italsoas ending n a somewhat taticgoal. In effect,it stressed hierarchy f regionsas our hier-archyofproblems.I suggest that we take a fresh look atthe hierarchy f problems, gnoringfor themoment omeof ourtraditional oints f view.I noted earlier hat cience s problem olving.

20 RichardHartshorne,erspectiven theNature fGeography Chicago: 1959), p. 21. The conceptofarealdifferentiations Hartshornexplains,stems romRichtofen'synthesisf the viewsof Humboldt ndBitter,nd has been most ully xpoundedn Hettner'swritings"ibid.,p. 12).


8/13

1963 WHERE IS A RESEARCHFRONTIER? 435The problems hatcan be examinedmeaning-fullydepend on the methodswhich are avail-able for their olution. As the centurieshavegone on, men have steadily increased theircapacity forproblem solving, but the trulyimportantchanges in methods of problemsolvinghave been remarkably ew.Theymightread somewhat as follows: writing; Arabicnumerals; analytical geometry nd calculus;and the combination f techniques that com-prise systemsanalysis. There was a time,perhaps just afterthe Second World War,whenthe nclusion fsystems nalysis n sucha list mighthave been consideredcontrover-sial. That is no longertrue. Systems, s youknow, are among the most pervasive andcharacteristicphenomena in nature. Eachhuman being, man or woman, is a system,that is, a dynamic structure f interacting,interdependent arts.2' Perhaps that is lessappealing than a poet's definition f a prettygirl,but it has meaning n that it relates thegirl as a system o all other systems, uch asa colonyofants,or a city, r a business corpo-ration.Systems nalysisprovidesmethodsofprob-lemsolvingwhichmight e said to have beencreatedforgeography, f therewere not alsomanyotheruses forthem. Geography s con-cerned with systems. Indeed, we may nowstate tsoverriding roblem. It is nothingessthan an understandingfthe vast, nteractingsystemomprisingll humanitynd its naturalenvironmentn the surfaceof theearth. Thismightbe compared with Humboldt's state-mentofa century go, "Even though hecom-plete goal is unobtainable, . . the strivingtowarda comprehensionfworldphenomenaremainsthe highestand eternalpurpose ofall research."22 t mayalso be comparedwithHartshorne's efinitionf thepurposeofgeog-raphy as "the study that seeks to providescientific escription fthe earthas the world

21 A useful hort ategorizationf ystemss given yKenneth . Bouldingn his General ystemsheory-The Skeleton f Science,"Managementcience,Vol.2(1956), pp. 197-208. He distinguishesine levels" fsystemsn increasingrderof complexity.A socialsystems of he ighth rder mong is evels.22 AlexanderonHumboldt, osmos: Entwurfinerphysischen eltbeschreibung,ol.1 (Stuttgart:845),p. 68. QuotedfromRichardHartshorne,erspectiveon theNature fGeography,. 162.

of man."23 Compare also Barrows' "geogra-phers . . . define theirsubject as dealing solelywiththe mutual relationsbetween man andhis naturalenvironment. y 'naturalenviron-ment' they of course mean the combinedphysical ndbiologicalenvironments....Thusdefined,geography s the science of humanecology."24All these statementshave somesimilarity.However,theconceptof theworldof man as a vast interacting,nterdependententity ermits s an effective rientation o aset ofproblems t differentevels n a waythatwe have never had before.25Furthermore,tputs us in a contextof sharp new problem-solvingmethods.26 f we are willing, t alsoplaces us in association nd in close communi-cation with other sciences whose overridingproblems re similar.Viewed in thisway one can see a host ofbeneficial esults.We no longer re concernedaboutwhetherwhatwe are doing sgeographyor not; we are concerned nstead withwhatwe contribute oward a largergoal, howeverinfinite t may seem. As in other ciences,anoverriding roblem of infinite xtent shouldbe a challenge,not cause forresignation rdespair. We no longer debate about whethergeography an constructlaws." At the sametime we do retain an identity y structuringour minds to handle spatial distribution at-terns n all theircomplexity.But as we goabout our task of analyzingspatial distribu-tions and space relations on the earth weshould keep in mindthe question, "What, ifanything, do geographic observations andanalysestell us about systemsgenerally, ndtheman-environmentystemparticularly?"

23Hartshorne,Perspective n theNature ofGeog-raphy, . 172.24 Barrows, p. cit.,p. 3.25 The closestpproach othisnthegeographyf he'30'sand 40'swas nRobert . Platt's iewofgeography"as the cience fregional rocess atterns f dynamicspacerelations." latt, AReview fRegionalGeogra-phy,"Annals,Association f AmericanGeographers,Vol. 47 (1957), p. 190. However, heappropriatenessof formalystemsonceptsogeographicesearchsnotmentionedyPlatt.26 Avery racefullytated escriptionf he ndivisi-ble attributeand others)ofsystemss givenby SirStafford eer n"BelowtheTwilight rch-A Mythol-ogy of Systems,"n Systems:Research nd Design(Donald P. Eckman, d.) (Wiley,New York:1961),pp. 1-25.


9/13

436 EDWARD A. ACKERMAN DecemberSUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONCEPT AND METHOD

We mightelaborate this positionin sum-marymanner: (1) The basic organizing on-cept of geography has three dimensions.They are: extent,density,and succession.27"Spatial distributionnd space relations" rea verbal shorthand ordescribing he dimen-sions of the concept. A theoreticalframe-work for investigationmay be developedfrom hisbasic concept,as observations on-firmhypotheses.282) The universetreatedby geographers is the worldwide man-natural environmentsystem. Geographersshare their overridingproblem, an under-standing of this system,with othersciences.(3) The worldwide system s composed ofa number of subsystems. The subsystemsassist in identifying hierarchy f problemsforresearch. (4) The techniques of systemsanalysis re ofparticular alue to geographersin applyingtheirorganizing space) conceptto theanalysisof subsystemsf theworldwideman-environmentystem.These techniques,because of theirrigor,permitreplicationsofanalysisand comparability f results amongdifferent esearch investigations.They alsostate the results of geographic research intermscomparable to those of othersciencesusing systems echniques, nd thereforemakesuchresults fgreater otentialuse in treatingthe overriding roblem, r any subproblem.

SYSTEMS METHODS ARE CHANGING SOCIETYEvents in the worldof todaymake it abso-lutelyessential that geographers dopt such27 Extent s measurable s size,shape,and orienta-tion. Density s shownby the amount f "between-ness." Simultaneitys a special aseof uccession.28 Cf. Blaut (op. cit., pp. 5-6), who interpretsHartshorneop. cit., p.74-80,133,144-45) andstatestheorganizingoncept s "areal ntegration." do notfindBlaut's tatementnconsistentiththestatementgiven nthisparagraph,uthisdoes leavetheepiste-mologicalproblem f what space is. (Discussed byBlaut nhis"Space and Process," rofessionaleogra-pher,Vol.XIII [July,961],pp.1-6.) In addition,heword integration"asa connotationf tudyechniquethat tome) detractsromlarity.By extensionalsodonotfind he tatementsfthisparagraphnconsistentithHartshorne'satest arefulanalysisof geographic onceptand method (Hart-shorne, p. cit.). It maybe notedthatHartshorne,always recisenhisdefinitions,asdescribedhe om-ponents fgeographictudy n a manner hatallowsthem ofit heviewofgeographyuggested ere, ndprobablyther iews lso.

a view iftheyhave aspirations o the frontierof research.Not only do muchsharper robesexistfor xaminingman's activities, utsocietyitself s responding o scientific hange. It isbeing organized n ways thatare more easilyevaluated. The scientific evolutionwe havebeen goingthroughs being accompaniedbya revolutionof rationalism n our economicstructure.ndeed, ithas been called a "secondIndustrialRevolution,"with effects alreadyvery profoundfor all humankind.Industrialengineering earsago removedthe individualdecisionmaking f the artisan."Cybernation,"or systemsdesign and systems ngineering,29are now rapidly moving individualityfrom"middle management"decision. This. deve]-opment s partof the social problemof auto-mation. Not least, systemsdesign and engi-neering, hrough henation'sdefenseprogram,is havinga dominant ole in domestic oliticalaffairs nd international elations. Researchapproaches have even been made towardunderstandinghe process of human thoughtitself.Herbert Simon has said, "We shall beable to specify xactlywhat it is that a manhas to learn about a particular ubject- .how he has to proceed-in order to solveeffectively roblemsthat relate to that sub-ject."30And,as you know, lready greatdealis knownabout manipulating ome aspects ofsociety, ike consumerdemands, n a more orless controlled ashion. What we inthe UnitedStates are experiencing s also going on inEurope and in Japan. Quite a different ormis found in the Soviet Union, but it still iscertainlyn aspectof rationalization.We mayexpectsimilardevelopments n otherpartsofthe world. And we mayexpect systems ngi-neeringto play an increasinglyarge role incoping with the social and economic crisesthat technological hange has brought.3'

29 See Donald N. Michael,Cybernation:he SilentConquest, or summaryccount f the ocialchangescausedby systemsngineering. imon, p. cit.,alsodescribeshem.30 Simon, p.cit., . 34.31 E. A.Johnsonasstated neaspect f his roblem,from a national point of view: ". . . the increase inphysical nowledge as madethefuture.. uncertain,

... we must lanmuch urtherhead na way hatwillprovidemuchgreater lexibility,hether hisbe inpeaceful rmilitaryffairs, hethert be for he ndi-vidual or for he country. .. our primary roblem s to


10/13

1963 WHERE IS A RESEARCH FRONTIER? 437These events nd trendshave theprofound-est significance orthefuture patial distribu-tion of human activities, nd we could nothope to anticipate runderstand hat distribu-tion withoutbeing fully abreast of what is

takingplace. On the otherhand, there mustbe something hatthe studyof spatial distri-butionscan tell us about these phenomena.To say this in brief,the methodsthat havecreatedimportant alientson the frontier fthe physical sciences are changing societyitself, othdirectly nd through heir mpacton thebehavioral ciences.SYSTEMS AND GEOGRAPHY S FRONTIERS

We are,then, oncernednotonlywith vastinteractingystem, ut with one that s beingaltered by knowledge of systems.We nowcome to themostdifficult art of our deter-mination.Recognition ftheoverriding rob-lem is of littlesignificanceunless we relateit to the direction f everyday esearch, nd,byextension,o thefieldswithwhichwe seekcommonground n thedefinition fproblems.Whatdoes this ell us aboutourownfrontiers?The one thing that most distinguishessystem s the flow of informationwithin t."Information"s not to be confusedwiththeordinarymeaning of the word, for it refersheretoanymechanism hatholdstogetherheinterdependent,nteracting arts of a system.This is an interesting nd critical point asfar as geography s concerned,because theconnectivity ithin systems itsmost mpor-tantcharacteristic.Many geographers,n theother hand, have stressed differences, sexemplifiedn the term areal differentiation."If you accept myproposal of the overridingproblemfor our science,it thenfollowsthatto choose a researchproblemwithoutrefer-ence to the connectivityf the system s torisktriviality.What space relations ell us offind wayto manageour verybig systemsffairsnthisnew situation. . . . We will have to examine ourindividual,roup, ndnational aluesto see what t swe wantto do ina rapidly hanging orld, nd toseewhatwecan do consciouslyo manipulaten ourfavorthereal ndperhaps ostile hysicalnd world nviron-ment o that twillserveus better.This s a problemofbig ystems." . A. Johnson,TheUseofOperationsResearch in the Study of Very Large Systems,"Systems:Research nd Design (Donald P. Eckman,ed.), pp.52-93.

connectivity n the system s significant oscience as a whole. Areal differences resignificant nly nsofar s theyhelptodescribeand definethe connectivityr "information"flow. We now see that the geographerswhohave been concernedwithculturaland otherprocesses have had an insightof significantdirection n research. Eight such processeswere suggested n thepast-four physical ndfour cultural. Among the culturalyou mayrememberdemographicmovement, rganiza-tionalevolution, heresource-convertingech-niques, and the space-adjustingtechniques.Among the physical, dynamics of the soilmantle,movement fwater, limate, nd bioticprocesseswere suggested.32

A second important haracteristicf a sys-tem is the existence of subsystemswithin t.The prettygirl, if you like, can be brokendown into an astonishingnumber of subsys-tems, like any complex being. The same istrueofother omplex ystems.This is anotherimportant nd critical oint,forwe mustmakethe properselectionof subsystems orstudyifwe are to maintain ignificance.We alreadyhave a clue inthe pastsuggestionsmade aboutthe importanceof processes. It is the func-tionalsubsystemshatare generally hesignif-icant ones. Thus the systematic spects ofgeography, nsofar s they reatfunctions, redisposedto a high evel ofsignificance.Thosegeographerswho have thought n termsofareal functional rganization gain have hada significantnsight s to researchdirection.However,not all typesofregionhave equalsignificance orresearch.Political regions reterritorial nits with a high level of signifi-cance because theyare functional. A water-shed is an example ofa physically eterminedregionthat s significant.On the otherhand,theold conceptof a "geographic" egionmayhave very little significance. We may needto review critically he significance f othertypes of regionswithinthe context we areconsidering.The conceptofa region s poten-tiallyvaluable insystems tudy, ut we shouldtake care thatthe regionalconcepts we actu-ally use are significantto the overridingsystem.32 Ackerman,eographys a Fundamental esearchDiscipline Chicago: 1958), p. 28.


11/13

438 EDWARD A. ACKERMAN DecemberSELECTION OF SIGNIFICANTCOLLABORATING SCIENCES

This bringsus through he second level inthe hierarchy f problems,down to a levelwhere one must seek specific examples ofsignificance.As geographers ave longappre-ciated, the flow of "information" ithintheman-natural environment ystemis indeedvast. Selectionof a researchproblemat ran-dom again risks riviality,ven though tmaybe entirely geographic"in conception. Atthispointone commences o be mostactivelyconcernedabout clues from thersciences asto significant orking roblems.Here we may go back to one of the firstobservationsmade in this discussion: Thesciences differ normously n theirrates ofprogress.For example,not all divisions fthebehavioralsciencesor theearth ciencesofferchannelsforproductive ommunication.With-out doubt we can benefitgreatlyfrom omecollaborativedefinition f researchproblemswithother ciences,but the cooperationmustbe selectively hosen. A good rule of thumbwouldbe: Wheresystemsnalysis echniquesare understood nd incorporatedt the work-ingface of thediscipline, collaborativedefi-nitionof problemmay profitably e sought.In other words, cooperation s likelyto berewarding where methods made familiarin the physical sciences are now reachinginto the neighboring arth sciences and thebehavioralsciences. Where the conceptsandapproachesusing ystemsnalysismethods remaking nroads, possibleplace of interestssuggestedforgeography.Relationswithothersciences which at times have been loose,vague, and hard to definemay thusbecomemore meaningful.The professions becomingequipped grad-ually to take such a view in its fundamentalresearch.The windof changewhich we havefelt or he astdecade includestheapplicationofsome methods fsystemsnalysis.Thus farthey generallyhave been the applicationofmore rigoroustechniques to old geographicproblems.Exceptfor ollaborationwithecon-omists and othersof the "regional science"group, and the older collaborationbetweenculturalgeographers nd culturalanthropolo-gists, we thus far have done relatively ittleto explore ommongroundwithother cienceson the definition f significant roblems. In

almost any direction we turn, interestingpossibilities appear. Indeed, there are somanyopportunitieshat the numberof peo-ple undertakinggeographic research seemsremarkably ew.The relation of geographyand the neigh-boring natural sciences is particularlynter-esting. By the neighboring atural sciences Imeanstudies hatfocuson thesurface eaturesof the earth, like soils, biotic features, ndwatermovement.The logical pointofcontactof thesescienceswith thehumanpart of thegreatman-land system s geography. In allofthem here s increasing ppreciation ftherole of man. For example, t is realized thatpollutionhas become a major feature nworld

hydrology;biological ecologists now admitthat venthemost inviolate" atural reserveswill be affected y man, no matterwhatpro-tection s given; and a few geomorphologistsnow recognize the significance f man as apart of geomorphicprocesses. We shouldbeparticularlylert ooverturesromheseneigh-boring ciences, ike thatofGeoffrey obinsonin geomorphology, ho suggests hat at leastsome geomorphologists re interested n acollaborative definitionof problems.33Weshould continueto capitalize on a point ofview thatgeography lone,untilrecently, asmaintained mongthesciencesconcernedwithman: land is halfof theman-land system.There are signs thatgeography's osition sa "gateway" between the behavioralsciencesand the earth sciences is being challengedsomewhatby the behavioral sciences them-selves. Economists,for example, in the lasttenyears have become increasinglyoncernedwith naturalresourcedevelopmentproblems.To be sure,geographershelped to start hemalong these lines, but there is now a directworking relation between economics andhydrology.It is significant hat the aspectsofeconomics mphasizing systems pproachprovided the important ecent contributionsto studyof resources.

RELATIONS WITH THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCESThese events uggest hat we need to main-tain a comprehensive iew of the frontiersn33Geoffrey obinson, A Considerationf the Rela-tions f Geomorphologynd Geography," he Profes-sionalGeographer,ol. XV (1963), pp. 13-17.


12/13

1963 WHERE IS A RESEARCH FRONTIER? 439the behavioral sciences,and that we have agood clue to common nterestn looking forthose investigatorswho pursue a systemsapproach. It has been said, "The behavioralsciences are diverse in subject matter andstate of development,yet ideas and conceptscirculate uite freely mongthem...."34 Thequotation may be a slightoverstatement,utitdoesrepresent n agreed-upon deal in thesesciences which we might well contemplate.How fardo we join themin the shaping ofgoals and in the exchangeofmethods whichwe have commenced o use?An illustration r two may directour atten-tion to possibilities.We have mentioned hata most mportantharacteristic f a system sthe flow of "information," roadly defined."Information"may be in the form of goods,people, messages containing ata or ideas, orotherdynamicphenomena. The geographer,by definition, ooks at what spatial distribu-tionstell concerning his nformation low,orvice versa. Geographers lreadyhave attackedsome of these problems of information lowsuccessfully.35 robably the most importantgeneral questionof thiskindfamiliar o geog-raphers is: "What can we say about howpeople distributehemselves nd their ultureon theearth,givenfreechoice?" Much of theworkgeographers ave done thusfar swithinthe context f economicconstraints,ut theyalso respondto their onceptsofamenities, oneighborhood nd other group attachments,to the diffusion f information,nd perhapsto otherfactors.There is a wealth of signifi-cant problemshere to examine. Attention othemcan bringus into a commonarea withstudentsof motivationn the behavioral sci-ences. This is a keyarea inbehavioral cienceresearch. We mayfindeventually omeinter-estingcommongroundwithpsychology,husfinally onnectingwith he nferences fM. G.Kendalltwenty-fiveears go.36 ndeed, studyof the brain is considered one of the most

34Behavioral Sciences ubpanel, resident'scienceAdvisoryCommittee, trengtheninghe BehavioralSciences Washington: pril 0, 1962), p. 13.35 A number f reports n such researchhave ap-pearedin the Annals; .g.,articles yW. L. Garrisonandothers. ublicationsf he regionalcience" roupalsoare illustrative.36 Seefootnote4 above.

useful approaches to the study of systemsgenerally.37Geographersrecentlyhave been alert tononeconomic information"low studies. Forexample,a much respectedpatternforgeo-graphical esearchwithmathematicalmethodshas been the diffusion f nnovationtudiesbyTorstenHuIgerstrandn Sweden.38These stud-ies,wellknown o American eographers, avestimulateddiffusion esearch n thiscountry.Such research s also a naturaloutgrowth flong-continued merican nterest n diffusionphenomena,followedparticularly y culturalgeographers.39At the same time the interest n diffusionstudies llustrates ur past relationswith otherscientificubjects. American ociologists avebeen carryingon very similar work sincethe early 1940's, includingsome elaboratelydesignedexperiments.40 s faras I can dis-cover there was littlecross-disciplinaryom-munication n thisremarkably imilarpath ofresearchuntilabout a year and a halfago. Itis obviousthatcollaboration erebetweenge-ography nd sociology anbe ofvalue. This isofmore than academic interest, oras Ullmanhas noted, "therelative stickiness' f society,the resistanceof certain areas to spread ofinnovationsand improvements," as strongimplications or public policy bothnationallyand internationally.41Allow me another and more unusualexample. Aninterestingffshootnthebehav-ioral sciences at thepresent ime s the studyofconflictheory,o whichKennethBoulding

37 Beer,op. cit.,p. 19. "The brain s itself hemostresplendentystemfthem ll...." We maywellre-flect owhatdegree ocialrealityeflectshestructureofthebrain.38 Torsten Wgerstrand,ThePropagationf nnova-tionWaves,"Lund Studies n GeographySweden:Lund,1952) andsucceeding ublications.39 See, forexample, red Kniffen,The AmericanCoveredBridge,"Geographic eview 1951), p. 114.

40 See, forexample,James . Coleman, The Dif-fusion f n nnovationmong hysicians,"ociometry,Vol. 20 (1957); Melvin eFleurand Otto arsen, lowof InformationNew York: Harper,1958); AnatolRapoport,Spreadof Informationhrough Popula-tionwith Social Structureias,"Bulletin f Mathe-matical iophysics, ol. 15 (1953).41 EdwardL. Ullman, GeographyheorynUnder-developedAreas," ssaysonGeographyndEconomicDevelopmentNorton . Ginsburg,d.), UniversityfChicago,DepartmentfGeography esearch aper62(Chicago: 1960), pp. 26-32.


13/13

440 EDWARD A. ACKERMAN Decemberof the Universityf Michigan and othershavecontributed. ooked at from he pointofviewof systems nd their nformationlow, onflicttheorys essentially searchfor redundancy,"or the capacity to handle in channels mul-tiple movementswith the same destination.Bouldinghas suggestedthat the theorymaybe of interestn studyingand use.42 Here isan opportunityo help in exploring he over-riding ystem hrough freshdea.A common ront ith hebehavioral ciencesis importantnot only in framing ignificantresearchquestionsbut also because of geog-raphy's ong associationwithhistorical tudy.Increasingly,t looksas thoughhistorywouldacquirescientificmeaning hroughhedimen-sions given tbybehavioral cience.

CONCLUSIONWe emergewith four general points thatcould help to place our science on a researchfrontier. 1) Continueto strengthenuanti-fyingmethods.Attempt o add to themrigor-ous analytical approaches in our theory ndhabits of constructing ypotheses. (2) Rec-ognizean earth-wideman-environmentystemas our overriding roblem.We can seeksignif-

icantresearch questions n the studyof sub-systems t differentevels, amenable to ourspatial distributionnalyses. (3) Choose ourresearch roblemsn the ight f the advancingfrontierf the behavioral sciences,and withattentionto systems-orientedtudy in theneighboring arthsciences. Finally, 4) sup-lement our present heavy commitments ostudies within economic constraints nd tomorphologytudiesbyother pproaches. Therisingnterestn culturalgeographys healthy,42 KennethBoulding,Conflict nd Defense (NewYork:Harper,1962), p. 1.

but we could diversifytillmore. particularlycommend o your ttention oliticalgeographywithin he systems ramework. t is concernedwith regionsthathave truefunctional ignifi-cance in the great man-land system.Seekingand stayingon a research frontieris a most exactingtask. It is now veryclearthat, in this age of specialization, specialknowledge and specialized concepts are notsufficient o hold a science on the frontier.The sense of overriding roblem s essential,and so is a view of at least a part of thespectrumof all science. This does not meanthat future accomplishmentwill be entirelyby thosewho are mathematicallyophisticated.For thoseof us not so endowed t s comforting

to remember hat A. A. Michelson,the firstAmerican o winthe Nobel Prize,was, by hisown admission,poorly prepared in mathe-matics. But he did have an extremely eensense of the overriding roblem in his field,a passionfor xactness, nd an alertness o thecontributionsfneighboring isciplines. hereis an importantplace for a comprehensiveview,but it mustbe a view based on some-thingmore thanundergraduate nd graduatecourses. I believe the time s near when post-graduate rainingnd a second doctoraldegreemay be the priceforreaching researchfron-tier. In ourplansforfuture rofessionalctionand inour adviceto those nprofessionalrain-ing, we mustthink bout thesematters eforeit is much ater. Ifwe do not,otherswill cul-tivate our frontier,or that s theway of sci-ence. If we do, perhapswe may come closerto justifyingharlesDarwin'swords, . . . thatgrand subject, that almost keystoneof thelaws ofcreation,GeographicalDistribution."4343CharlesDarwin, etter o Joseph altonHooker,1845.

ackerman 1963 where is a research frontier

Documents