19 May 2009
To explore or to research? That is not the question.
Posted by Dave Petley
Some readers will be aware that there has been a rumpus during the last few months at the Royal Geographical Society (RGS-IBG) over its policy not to organise and run its own expeditions. A small but influential group (the Beagle Campaign) petitioned for, and got, a Special General Meeting of the Fellows of the Society, culminating in a vote on the issue, on Monday. The resolution, which was opposed unanimously by members of the Council, was defeated (but the vote was quite close on a large turn-out), meaning that the current policy is retained, although this policy was always scheduled to be reviewed over the next year.
You may wonder why I am posting on this issue on a landslide blog? Well, I am an Honorary Secretary of the RGS-IBG, and thus am a member of the Council. In the months leading up to the vote I have been careful not to comment in any public forum on the issue – I felt that in the interests of fairness it was best to remain silent (whilst encouraging all Fellows, regardless of their views of the resolution, to vote) – but now that the vote is over I will explain why I was opposed to the resolution. I write only from absolutely personal perspective – I was in Hong Kong on the day of the vote and have been here since. I have not discussed the vote with any other Council members, and I most certainly do not write on behalf of the Society.
First and foremost, the RGS-IBG has a long and proud tradition of fieldwork. I am a great advocate of field research – my early career was to a large degree built upon it – and I strongly believe that there is a great deal to learn from fieldwork that cannot be learnt from lab studies or from models. The key question therefore is not whether field research should be undertaken (every member of the Council is resolute about the importance of field research), but how should it be organised and funded. I guess in a sense this is where the Beagle Campaign followers and I disagree. They argue, passionately and impressively, that it is best undertaken through large, reasonably long-term expeditions. I argue that it is best undertaken through larger numbers of smaller scale, focused studies. Let me explain why.
In my view there is no doubt at all that the world is facing some pretty serious challenges. Climate change is the most widely discussed, but population growth, urbanisation, deforestation, biodiversity collapse, energy security, inequality and oceanic environmental degradation for example are serious challenges too in my view (some may be more serious than climate change actually). To help us to deal with these issues we need the best research undertaken by the best researchers in the optimum locations. The clock is ticking (loudly), we cannot be complacent. Geographers undoubtedly have a substantial part to play – which other discipline covers all of the above issues? Therefore, the RGS-IBG, as one of the premier Geography organisations, must take a lead. I think that the society is so doing, and am proud of my (very small) role in this.
Unfortunately, the amount of resource that the RGS-IBG has at its disposal is comparatively small. A key question therefore is what is the best way for the Society to use that resource to achieve the necessary aims? My view is that it is to direct comparatively small amounts of money at very high quality research that addresses fundamental issues (and by fundamental I mean key issues conceptually or in terms of influence). This occurs at almost every level – substantial shares go to undergraduate groups, to postgraduates, to early career researchers and to established researchers. The funds are generally used to “leverage” (dreadful word) other funds to great effect. The funding is thus both efficient and effective.
Other pots support more adventurous activities. The Land Rover sponsored Go Beyomd bursary for example provides funding and a Land Rover Defender to allow non-scientific expeditions (my own car is a Defender – there is no better vehicle for this).
Unfortunately, I just cannot see how the large-scale, multi-researcher but single location expedition approach can achieve what the current approach achieves. Almost any location is ideal for only a small range of contemporary problems. What is good for climate change (e.g. the high latitudes) does not facilitate research in another (e.g. urbanisation), meaning that the RGS-IBG would have to balance one threat against another. The current approach allows the Society to adress a wide range of issues in a wide range of environments by all levels of researchers, and still to produice world class research. The RGS-IBG should be proud of this – it is a remarkable achievement.
The newspaper articles supporting the Beagle Campaign (of which there were many) gave the impression that both models are possible – i.e. the RGS-IBG could organise both its own expeditions and support smaller-scale field research projects. Superficially this is attractive, but I think one must be realistic. The available pot of funding to support the Society is inevitably at best static, and possibly contracting, in the current economic climate. I can find no reasons to believe that in this context the RGS-IBG would be able to maintain its existing activities and support large-scale expeditions. I might be wrong, but to try to do so would be immensely risky.
Therefore I believe that the current policy is the right one. However, I recognise that the planned review may recommend a change policy – and that once all the factors have been taken into account then would be the right way to go. The review will undoubtedly be thorough and balanced, and it will then be up to Council to decide on the best way forward once the recommendations have been made. Given that there are elections for places on Council next month – and one of the positions being contested is the one that I currently hold – there are plenty of opportunities to influence this policy.
Your comments are welcome.
Dave Petley
Hong Kong,
20th May 2009
Dave Petley is the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Hull in the United Kingdom. His blog provides commentary and analysis of landslide events occurring worldwide, including the landslides themselves, latest research, and conferences and meetings.
Dave,Thanks for your thoughtful comments on the RGS/IBG discussion. It was helpful to hear from someone on Council and I greatly appreciate your temperate approach to issues which have generated a certain amount of heat.I too am standing for election to Council as Hon Sec Expeditions and Fieldwork. By way of background I’m an intellectual property lawyer (in which capacity I have advised the Society for many years) and have been on a good many expeditions (as a photographer). The principal (but not the only) reason given by the Council for discontinuing Society-led expeditions/programmes is lack of funds. As I understand it research-funding comes from two sources: research council grants, which are only accessible by academics/universities, and private funding from individuals or grant-giving foundations. Historically, the RGS/IBG has got its expedition funds from the latter. As you & others say, this is a difficult time to raise funds. That does not mean it is impossible. I cannot see any reason why funds should dry up now. Concern about climate change and related issues are central to just about every facet of our lives. The big donors – and there are still plenty of them around – will always be attracted to major projects which will raise their profile in the environmental field. Indeed my hunch is that it will be easier in the current climate to attract funding for a major project than to pump-prime smaller expeditions. The Society can offer something that other applicants for funds can’t: the capacity to be flexible, to be an umbrella for a range of disciplines, a long & honorable history of fieldwork/exploration, its reputation as a place where bold vision flourishes. There are few if any organisations in Britain which are better-placed to bring scientific disciplines and human geography under one roof. At a time when our area of expertise is at the top of everyone’s agenda the RGS/IBG – which, as you rightly observe, is one of the premier geographical organisations worldwide – should take the lead. There has never been a better time to do so than now, following the successful merger with the IBG and the foundation-building work that Rita Gardner has master-minded in the last decade.Will the Society, by mounting its own programmes, achieve more for geographical science than it will solely as a grant-giving body, debating chamber and holder of archives? I believe it will. These four strands are interdependent and mutually supportive of one another.I also believe that expeditions & field-work are the ideal opportunity to raise the Society’s status in the geographical world, whether through grants to 3rd parties or Society-led initiatives. In PR terms, as well as the research results, the latter – if led by a charismatic expedition-leader who can inspire financial backers, unite the scientific disciplines and engage the media – will enhance the Society’s standing more powerfully than the giving of grants. Firstly, it would cast the Society in an international role in the geographical issues with which we now contend, and in constructing a world in which people have hope. Secondly it is the Society’s direct connection with the mountains and the forests and the deserts of our world which historically has given the Society its magic; it is why most people join and turn up on Monday evenings.This is why I voted for the resolution. Can I share 4 further thoughts/caveats with you? (See next entry…)
1. Field research programs need not be far-flung – or large – and they needn’t be expensive. What is important is that the research is important, the researchers are drawn from a range of disciplines, the programs are developed with host country governments and give a significant role to emerging local leaders. 2. The language of the resolution is not prescriptive – the Society should [not must] mount its own expeditions – and ties in with Professor Ron Cooke’s recommendation in the Society’s 2001 review that ‘as and when appropriate [there should be] major Society-led expeditions with thematic agendas’.3. I do not believe that we Fellows are in a position to decide how and when and what research programs should be mounted. We elect the Council to do that. It says as much in the Royal Charter, a point which the Council, in the papers sent out before the SGM, have rightly emphasised. 4. The recent vote, which as you said was quite close on a large turn-out, highlights the gap between the Council and a significant proportion of Fellows. I have no doubt the Council is alive to this. There is always a risk, in a learned Society with lay members, that the priorities of the experts (who are in charge) are going to rub up against the expectations and aspirations of the lay members (whose subscriptions keep the show on the road). The current polarization in the RGS/IBG is – broadly – between the scientists/academics on the one hand & the informed traveller/adventurers on the other. Both are vital to the Society’s future. The trick is to create a climate in which the tension between them is creative rather than disruptive. As Peter Lodge used to say on the underground (he did the male voiceover, now more or less phased out), we need to “Mind the Gap”. If I get elected that is what I shall do. Rupert Grey