Environment and Planning A 2006, volume 38, pages 603 ^ 610
DOI:10.1068/a38280
Commentary
Is there an `Anglo-American' domination in human geography? And, is it bad?
Geographers have over the last few years delved with gusto into the question of the
supposed `Anglo-American' hegemony in human geography and about its potential
impact on `other traditions' (Garc|¨ a-Ramön, 2003; Minca, 2003). The vast majority of
these contributions are extremely critical of the shape human geography is taking as
a consequence of this `Anglo-Saxon' ascendancy [see Paasi (2005) for a very useful
overview of the debate]. The whole debateöhaving been conducted mainly in editorials
such as this oneöis peppered with strong assertions that, over time, have become so
common that they are now almost uncritically accepted as facts within the discipline.
Several common truisms are taken for granted. First, it is assumed that the AngloAmerican geographers are able to set the agenda (Berg and Kearns, 1998, page 129;
Gutiërrez and Löpez-Nieva, 2001), to establish ideas, concepts, and categories, which
are classified as `international' (Gregson et al, 2003, page 17), and curricula and
teaching programmes (Yiftachel, 2003, page 139). Second, it is also accepted that the
vast majority of the `dominant' Anglo-American geographers ignore or disregard as
irrelevant, research written in languages other than English (Garc|¨ a-Ramön, 2003,
page 1; Minca, 2003). Third, this neglect is not just simply a question of lack of
language proficiency, as even the work in English of geographers from `other traditions'
is considered, at best, as exotic case studies and, at worst, as irrelevant in terms of
generating theory or pushing the boundaries of the discipline (Berg and Kearns, 1998,
page 129). Hence, the prevailing perception is that the supposed `Anglo-American'
domination is narrowing the confines of the discipline, eating away some of its richness
and diversity, and leading towards a human geography that is poorer and less capable
of understanding an increasingly complex world in which diversity matters (Kitchin,
2003; Minca, 2000).
Yet, leaving aside important issues such as whether a unique and unified `AngloAmerican' core exists (Johnston and Sidaway, 2004a; 2004b), most of the assertions on
which the above perception is based are simply grounded on nothing more than the
perceptions of individual authors. With very few exceptions (for example, Gutiërrez
and Löpez-Nieva, 2001; Yeung, 2001), the editorials and articles which have propelled
this discussion within human geography are eerily devoid of facts that would support
such strong assertions and often driven by feelings, anecdotes, and even by what at
times seems to be some sort of personal grudge at, for example, having had a paper
rejected by an editor on what the author(s) consider to be spurious grounds (and who
in the academic world has never felt that way!) (for example, Berg and Kearns, 1998).
In this commentary, my intention is first to make a small contribution to the
debate, by providing some necessarily partial evidence about the existence of this
supposed `Anglo-American' ascendancy over human geography. This evidence is based
on simple indicators, such as the origin of the Vautrin ^ Lud prize winners and, above
all, on the publication and citation patterns of some of the top journals in human
geography over the last two decades and a half. The second part of the commentary is a
more personal attempt to discuss whether this potential `Anglo-American' domination
is necessarily bad for the discipline.
604
Is there an Anglo-American hegemony in human geography?
Commentary
Do Anglo-Americans dominate human geography? There are numerous ways of
assessing the influence of national or supranational scholarly traditions over a particular academic discipline. A simple and straightforward indicator is to look at where
the `popes' of the discipline work. There is probably no greater accolade for a geographer today than the award of the Vautrin ^ Lud prize, which some have equated to the
`Nobel for geography'. If we use the simple indicator of the winners of this prize, there
is little sign of an Anglo-American hegemony. Of the sixteen prizes awarded so far,
eight have gone to nonnative English speakers (four French, two Swiss, one Swede, and
one Brazilian), none of whom was based in an English-speaking university. The remaining eight prizes have been equally divided between researchers based in British and US
universities. There are two striking features that can be inferred from this indicator.
First, more than a potential Anglo-American domination among prizewinners, comes
the possible overrepresentation of French geographers on the list, given the size of
discipline in the country. This could be partially explained by the fact that the prize is
awarded in France. Even more striking, though, is the relative underrepresentation of
US geographers among the award winners (a fact that becomes even more remarkable,
if one takes into consideration that both David Harvey and Allen Scott are originally
British). From this perspective, geography fares better in terms of the geographical
origin of winners than other social sciences, such as economics or political sciences.
Using a similar indicator, there is much greater evidence of Anglo-American domination in these two disciplines than in human geography. In economics, forty-one out
of fifty-five Nobel prizewinners so faröalmost 75%öwere based in US universities.
None of the award winners since 1998 works outside the USA. If we add the British
winners, more than 85% of the prizes went to Anglo-American-based economists.
In political science, nine of the eleven Johan Skytte prizewinners are Americans.
Given that the Vautrin ^ Lud prizes are awarded for lifetime achievements, they may
not reflect the current evolution of human geography, especially if the growing AngloAmerican hegemony is supposed to be a recent phenomenon. A probably more accurate
indicator of whether the research from academics based outside English-speaking
universities is increasingly being overlooked is the evolution of the publication patterns
by geographical origin of author(s) in top academic journals. I analyse this factor for
three top human geography journals. For this exercise I exclude journals published
by national professional associations, as their publications very often tend to reflect
national membership. More than 75% of the articles published in the Annals of the
Association of American Geographers, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers,
the Bulletin de l'Association des Gëographes Franc°ais, or the Bolet|¨ n de la Asociaciön
de Geögrafos Espan¬oles are written by nationals of the country where the association
responsible for the journal is based (Rodr|¨ guez-Pose, 2004). Commercial publishers
tend to be less biased, although still heavily influenced by the composition of the
editorial board and the location of the publisher in their publishing patterns (Gutiërrez
and Löpez-Nieva, 2001; Rodr|¨ guez-Pose, 2004). The three top commercial academic
journals selected are the following. Environment and Planning A, widely regarded as the
top commercial generalist journal for human geography. It has the advantage of having
been published for over thirty-seven years and of having produced around one hundred
articles per year during much of this period. Regional Studies is the multidisciplinary
journal of a European-wide association, the Regional Studies Association. It is much
favoured by geographers, as well as by economists. Finally, the Journal of Economic
Geography is a specialist journal that in just four years of life has shot to the top of
the impact factor league table for geography, according to the ISI Journal Citation
Reports for 2004. By looking at the evolution of the origin of the universities of the
Commentary
605
authors publishing articles in these journals, I hope to shed some light on whether
there is, first, an Anglo-American hegemony in these journals and whether, if it exists,
it has been increasing.
Let me first mention a series of caveats that may bias the results of the analysis.
Given the nature of the sample journals a certain bias in favour of Anglo-American
academics can be expected. First, all three journals are entirely published in English.
Regional Studies publishes the abstracts of articles in four languages, but the main
body of papers is written in English. Second, the editors of the journals are, with the
exception of Henry Yeungöone of six editors of Environment and Planning Aö and
Jacques Thisseöassociate editor of the Journal of Economic Geographyöall based in
British or North American universities. The editorial boards are overwhelmingly
dominated by academics with a UK or North American base.(1) Third, the publishersöPion, Routledge, and Oxford University Press öare all British firms. Taking
these factors into account, the evolution of the publication trend may be a more
important indicator than the existence of a bias in itself.
All authors signing articles published in Environment and Planning A and Regional
Studies between 1980 and 2004 have been analysed. Authors have been grouped
according to the countries where they work, rather than by countries of origin. Six
geographical groupings are reported: United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland;
United States and Canada; Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, among the
English-speaking countries; and the rest of Europe; Asia; and the rest of the World,
among the non English-speaking areas. The sample has been divided into five-year
periods in order to give a picture of the evolution of publication patterns. The source
of data is the Thomson's ISI Social Science Citation Index, last accessed on 20 July
2005. The results for these two journals are reported in tables 1 and 2 (over).
In Environment and Planning A (table 1) of the 606 authors who signed papers
during the period 2000 ^ 04, 423 worked in English-speaking countries. This represents
71% of the total for the period. This domination by `Anglo-Saxon' researchers is,
however, down on the proportion of 79% for the period 1980 ^ 84, and especially on
that of 85% for the period 1995 ^ 99. The balance within the English-speaking camp
has, however, not remained still. Contributions by British academics have shot up over
Table 1. The evolution of the geographical origin of authors publishing in Environment and
Planning A (source: author's own elaboration, using Social Science Citation Index data).
1980 ± 84
1985 ± 89
1990 ± 94
1995 ± 99
2000 ± 04
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
%
%
%
%
%
United Kingdom
and Republic
of Ireland
USA and Canada
Australia, New
Zealand, and
South Africa
Rest of Europe
Asia
Other
165
30.67
176
35.13
184
35.52
306
52.76
247
40.76
210
50
39.03
9.29
182
45
36.33
8.98
194
40
37.45
7.72
159
33
27.41
5.69
166
19
27.39
3.14
87
23
3
16.17
4.28
0.56
71
26
1
14.17
5.19
0.20
68
27
5
13.13
5.21
0.97
60
22
0
10.34
3.79
0.00
109
62
3
17.99
10.23
0.50
Total
538
100.00
501
100.00
518
100.00
580
100.00
606
100.00
(1) Although Fulong Wu or myself, on the board of Environment and Planning A, have distinct
non-Anglo-Saxon educational backgrounds.
606
Commentary
Table 2. The evolution of the geographical origin of authors publishing in Regional Studies
(source: author's own elaboration, using Social Science Citation Index data).
1980 ± 84
1985 ± 89
1990 ± 94
1995 ± 99
2000 ± 04
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
%
%
%
%
%
United Kingdom
and Republic
of Ireland
USA and Canada
Australia, New
Zealand, and
South Africa
Rest of Europe
Asia
Other
106
62.72
119
59.20
176
65.67
224
64.93
147
44.55
40
8
23.67
4.73
52
6
25.87
2.99
46
10
17.16
3.73
41
7
11.88
2.03
54
7
16.36
2.12
12
1
2
7.10
0.59
1.18
18
5
1
8.96
2.49
0.50
30
6
0
11.19
2.24
0.00
63
10
0
18.26
2.90
0.00
112
9
1
33.94
2.73
0.30
Total
169
100.00
201
100.00
268
100.00
345
100.00
330
100.00
the last two decades and a half, at the expense of those of North Americans and
authors from other English-speaking countries. Publications by US and Canadian
scholars, which represented almost 40% of the total in the early 1980s, are now down
to 27%. The relative number of authors from other English-speaking countries has
suffered an even steeper decline. Papers signed by Australians (the contribution by
New Zealanders and South Africans has traditionally been almost negligible) went
down from 9% in the early 1980s to 3% at the beginning of the 21st century. The
number of authors from non-English-speaking countries, which remained around
20% throughout the 1980s and first half of the 1990s, fell to 14% in the period 1995 ^
99, only to double its share in the period 2000 ^ 04. The highest rise took place among
Chinese scholars, who during this period made almost 5% of the total contributions.
The number of European authors outside the British Isles also rose to a peak of 18% of
the total, with the increase coming not only from the traditional Continental European
sources of the journal (the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, or Austria), but also from
Spain, Belgium, Norway, France, or Switzerland. Much of this rise in the 2000 ^ 04
period came at the expense of authors based in the British Isles (table 1).
In Regional Studies there is a more straightforward story of a waning domination
by authors from English-speaking countriesöwho in the period 2000 ^ 04 still published 63% of the contributionsöand of a rise of the contributions by authors from the
rest of Europe. Articles from authors outside Europe and English-speaking countries
still represent only 3% of the total (table 2). The share of contributions by Continental
Europeans has been multiplied five-fold over the last two decades and a half. And
there has also been a shift in the origin of authors. The traditional domination in this
field by the Dutch, Germans, and Israelis has given way to a more plural structure. For
the period 2000 ^ 04, although German authors still formed the largest group among
Continental Europeans, they were closely followed by Spaniards and Italians, with the
Dutch, Swedes, French, Austrians, and Greeks also making substantial contributions.
Among the English-speaking camp, the evolution echoes that already observed for
Environment and Planning A: a declining influence of North American and Australian
authors until 1999, with British authors showing remarkable stability, only to see their
share significantly dented by Continental Europeans in the period 2000 ^ 04 (table 2).
In the few years of operation of the Journal of Economic Geography Continental
Europeans are at exactly the same level as authors from the British Isles, but these two
groups are well below the number of North American authors (table 3).
Commentary
607
Table 3. The geographical origin of authors publishing in Journal of Economic Geography
(source: author's own elaboration, using Social Science Citation Index data).
2002 ± 05
no.
%
United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland
USA and Canada
Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa
Rest of Europe
Asia
Other
25
37
1
25
4
1
26.88
39.78
1.08
26.88
4.30
1.08
Total
93
100.00
Even more important than the share of publications of different authors according
to origin in order to measure the influence of `Other' schools of thought in human
geography, is how noticed and influential a paper published in these journals becomes.
As a way of measuring influence, I have selected the top-cited papers in Environment
and Planning A and Regional Studies for each of the periods analysed. Again using the
Social Science Citation Index, I chose different cut-off points for highly cited papers.
The default was thirty citations per paper, which was applied to all periods, with the
exception of 2000 ^ 04, where the limit was lowered to fifteen. In Regional Studies for
the period 1994 ^ 99 the limit was set at twenty cites. This method is highly imperfect,
as the cut-offs are arbitrary and the system will tend to benefit articles published at the
beginning of each period. Although this problem will by now have become almost
irrelevant for those papers published between 1980 and 1984 or between 1985 and 1989, it
does provoke huge distortions in the most recent periods. Virtually no papers published
in 2003 and 2004 make the cut-off limits. However imperfect the approach, it will
give the reader an indication of the influence of papers published by authors in each
of the geographical/linguistic groups. The results for the two journalsöthe Journal of
Economic Geography is much too young for me to conduct such exerciseöare presented
in tables 4 and 5 (over).
The picture that emerges from the analysis of the results is significantly different in
the two journals. In Environment and Planning A the presence of papers by authors
from institutions in non-English-speaking countries among the most highly cited is
limited. Even though papers by Malmberg and Maskell, and Grabheröall Continental
European authorsöcome first and fourth, respectively, in number of citations for
the period 2000 ^ 04 and that two papers by Asian authors appear for the first time
Table 4. Evolution of the geographical origin of authors of highly cited papers published in
Environment and Planning A (numbers of papers reported) (source: author's own elaboration,
using Social Science Citation Index data).
1980 ± 84
United Kingdom and
Republic of Ireland
USA and Canada
Australia, New Zealand,
and South Africa
Rest of Europe
Asia
Cut-off (cites)
1985 ± 89
1990 ± 94
1995 ± 99
2000 ± 04
10
15
12
6
8
8
2
10
0
7.5
2
2
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
1.5
0
1
0
2
2
30
30
30
15
30
608
Commentary
Table 5. Evolution of the geographical origin of authors of highly cited papers published in
Regional Studies (numbers of papers reported) (source: author's own elaboration, using Social
Science Citation Index data).
1980 ± 84
1985 ± 89
1990 ± 94
1995 ± 99
2000 ± 04
United Kingdom and
Republic of Ireland
USA and Canada
Australia, New Zealand,
and South Africa
Rest of Europe
Asia
13
7
11.5
17
4.5
2
1
6
0
6.5
0
4
0
1.5
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
4
0
6
0
Cut-off (cites)
30
30
30
20
15
in the ranking, these tend to be the exception, rather than the rule. Out of nineteen
highly cited papers in this period, only these four are from authors working outside
English-speaking countries (table 4). The main change occurring during the period of
analysis is the shift in the balance of highly cited papers among the English-speaking
camp, in favour of research conducted in the British Isles. Whereas papers signed by
North American and Australian authors represented more than 50% of the highly
cited papers in the journal during the 1980s, for the period 2000 ^ 04 their share was
down to 15% of the total. British and Irish-based researchers, in contrast, had fifteen
of eighteen highly cited papers for the period 1995 ^ 99 and twelve out of nineteen for
2000 ^ 04 (table 4).
In the case of Regional Studies a relatively stable pattern of highly cited papers
across geographical origins (with the United Kingdom always topping the chart) was
turned upside down in the period 2000 ^ 04 by the emergence of the Continental
Europeans (table 5). Papers with at least one Continental European author represent
in this period half of the total, with papers by Grabher, and Feser and Bergman
topping the citations rank.
Overall, the picture that emerges for the combined analysis of publications and
highly cited papers is a necessarily partial one, given the fact that only a limited
number of journals has been taken into consideration for the period of analysis. But,
from this evidence, it seems undeniable that an Anglo-American hegemony in the
areas of human geography represented by these two journals exists. The hegemony
is, however, weaker than could have been expected in view of the debate about the
Anglo-American ascendancy over the discipline and becoming more of a British than
an American supremacy, as the presence and influence of North Americanöand to an
even greater extent Australianöauthors is on the wane. And even the `Anglo' hegemony seems past its peak. The rise in the numbers of authors and in the influence of
publications by Continental Europeans and more recently Asians has been an important factor since the late 1990s in Regional Studies and from the beginning of the 21st
century in Environment and Planning A. Not only the `Others' are saying more, but they
also seem to be increasingly heard.
Is this waning Anglo-American hegemony necessarily bad?
Having accepted that an Anglo hegemony in human geography exists, but that it seems
to be on the wane, is this necessarily bad? Participants in the debate about the AngloAmerican hegemony in human geography have too readily adopted the position
that this supremacy in numbers of publications by geographers coming from Englishspeaking countries, and in particular from the United States and the United Kingdom,
is bad (Aalbers, 2004; Berg and Kearns, 1998; Garc|¨ a-Ramön, 2003). It is generally
Commentary
609
accepted that human geographers from `Other' traditions have a lot to say or do
high-quality research, but are somehow discouraged from publishing in Englishspeaking journals by a language disadvantage (for example, Aalbers, 2004; Sakho,
2003), a cultural and power barrier (Berg, 2001), or by different forms and structures
of conducting research (Gregson et al, 2003). External, rather than internal factors
are identified as the main culprits. Although this may be true, the counterfactual is
almost never considered or explored. The rising share of publications by Continental
Europeans and Asians in international journals is a sign that the situation is changing
in many countries and more adequate incentives to conduct research are being set in
place. The barriers to research in many parts of the world are, however, still significant
and may be an important factoröif not the main factoröin the lack of participation
of scholars from `Other' geographical traditions in `international' academic publishing.
A combination of rigid, often endogamous and/or nepotistic, hierarchical structures,
with either too stable or too precarious and almost always poorly paid academic jobs,
which still persists in many academic traditions, is continuing to stifle the research
potential of many academics. It is often the case that young researchers from many
parts of the world face years of precariousness before securing an academic job, with
unwritten rules of engagement and of professional promotion that often have little to
do with research or even teaching excellence. Those who make it into the system then
frequently have to spend a large part of their time trying to combine academia with
consultancy or other activities in order to make ends meet. And exposure to alternative
research cultures and traditions is still, at best, patchy. The multinational atmosphere
of many departments of geography in the United Kingdom, in Canada, or the United
States is, with very few exceptions (for example, Singapore, some Scandinavian departments), still completely foreign to the majority of non-English-speaking countries.
Although, as mentioned earlier, these circumstances are slowly changing, many of
the researchers working in these countries often conduct research in spite of the system,
rather than because of it.
This was perhaps the main reason that spurred me to look for an academic job
outside my national scholarly tradition. At the end of my doctorate, I faced a similar
dilemma to that of scores of nonnative-English-speaking geographers. Having never
studied in an Anglo-American system and clearly intent on working in my home
country, Spain, I had two options and an alternative. Either to face a long wait in
very precarious economic circumstances for an opening in a Spanish university, which
depended not only on my academic ability or my publication record, but mainly on the
political strength of my academic sponsors, or to look for my future outside academia.
The alternative was to apply for academic jobs in those places where I knew there
would be flexibility and probably equal opportunities. This meant fundamentally,
although not exclusively, Anglo-American universities. Having chosen the second
option while waiting for the first to happen, I got tired of waiting after two years
and finally decided to apply for jobs in the United Kingdom, as the only way I thought
at the time of being able to realise my academic vocation. Ten years down the line, it is
clear to me that, if anything, this decision had an enormous impact on my research
productivity. In the UK system I found a combination of incentives, support, and
pressure to conduct academic research that would have been difficult to replicate in
a Spanish academic setting.
The fact that these internal issues are rarely explored in the Anglo-American
hegemony debate is telling. It is often easier to consider that some external force or
power is preventing scholars from different traditions from fulfilling their true potential, when the root of the problem may be closer to home. The balance between
external factors (Anglo-American domination, use of English as the lingua franca)
610
Commentary
and internal factors (inadequate incentives to conduct research, in-built rigidities, decades
of isolation) ought to be addressed in greater depth in this debate. Otherwise we run
the risk of being regarded as simply having a grudge against the Anglo-American
hegemony in human geography, in the same way as many disapprove of the United
States being the only superpower. If the debate is stuck along those lines, we will let
the opportunities and the signs of change that seem to be appearing in recent years
pass by and will have lost a unique opportunity to give the `Other' a greater voice and
a greater capacity to influence the agenda in human geography.
Andrës Rodr|¨ guez-Pose
Department of Geography and Environment, London School of Economics and Political
Science
References
Aalbers M, 2004, ``Creative destruction through the Anglo-American hegemony: a non-AngloAmerican view on publications, referees and language'' Area 36 319 ^ 322
Berg L, 2001, ``Masculinism, emplacement, and positionality in peer review'' The Professional
Geographer 53 511 ^ 521
Berg L, Kearns R, 1998, ``America unlimited'' Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 16
128 ^ 132
Garc|¨ a-Ramön M D, 2003, ``Globalization and international geography: the questions of languages
and scholarly traditions'' Progress in Human Geography 27 1 ^ 5
Gregson N, Simonson K,Vaiou D, 2003, ``Writing (across) Europe: on writing spaces and writing
practices'' European Urban and Regional Studies 10 5 ^ 22
Gutiërrez J, Löpez-Nieva P, 2001, ``Are international journals of human geography really
international?'' Progress in Human Geography 25 53 ^ 69
Johnston R J, Sidaway J, 2004a, ``The trans-Atlantic connection: `Anglo-American' geography
reconsidered'' Geojournal 59 15 ^ 22
Johnston R J, Sidaway J, 2004b Geography and Geographers 6th edition (Arnold, London)
Kitchin R, 2003, ``Cuestionando y desestabilizando la hegemon|¨ a angloamericana y del inglës en
geograf|¨ a'' Documents d'Ana©lisi Geogra©fica 42 17 ^ 36
Minca C, 2000, ``Venetian geographical praxis'' Environment and Planning D: Society and Space
18 285 ^ 289
Minca C, 2003, ``Critical peripheries'' Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 21 160 ^ 168
Paasi A, 2005, ``Globalisation, academic capitalism, and the uneven geographies of international
journal publishing spaces'' Environment and Planning A 37 769 ^ 789
Rodr|¨ guez-Pose A, 2004, ``On English as a vehicle to preserve geographical diversity'' Progress in
Human Geography 28 1 ^ 4
Sakho H, 2003, ``Looking deep into the surface: critical thinking and uncritical geography''
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 21 142 ^ 147
Yeung H W C, 2001, ``Redressing the geographical bias in social science knowledge'' Environment
and Planning A 33 2 ^ 9
Yiftachel O, 2003, ``Relocating `the critical'? Reflections from Israel/Palestine'' Environment and
Planning D: Society and Space 21 137 ^ 142
ß 2006 a Pion publication printed in Great Britain