Canadian Geographer, VII, 4, 1963

Basically this paper was written at a time when quantitative measurements (mapping, models, statistics) became the main focus of research in the field of physical geography. Ian Burton begins by explaining how emphasis was given to physical geography (in particular the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth centuries), which led geographers to the idea that nature determines culture (environmental determinism). However, this concept was challenged by other geographers who did not deny the influence of external forces on an individual, but rather, the individual can (will) choose some of his own actions (possibilism). This reaction to determinism eventually brought about a shift from qualitative geography to quantitative geography and pursued laws to explain geographical phenomena, this shift being called the quantitative revolution. The basic argument was that determinism over-generalized and supported general theories that proved illogical. On the other hand, the quantitative revolution sought to investigate and prove geographical processes. However, according to Burton, the quantitative revolution was not met without opposition. With this, Burton describes, (sometimes a little harsh), what he calls the five broad classes of opposition to the quantitative revolution. These classes are: (1) ‘those who thought that the whole idea was a bad one’; (2) ‘those who argued that geographers had spent tool long perfecting their tools and should get on with some real building’; (3) ‘that statistical techniques are suitable for some kinds of geography but not all geography’; (4) ‘while quantitative techniques are suitable and their application to geographic problems is desireable, they are nevertheless being incorrectly applied; (ends confused with means)’; and (5) ‘quantification is alright but quantifiers are not; in that quantifiers are over-enthusiastic and arrogant’.

According to Burton, the quantitative revolution in geography began in the late 1940’s or early 1950’s but is now over. Clearly, along with his description of opposition, Burton is biased and comes to the conclusion that the quantitative revolution is over because he compares the quantitative revolution to an intellectual revolution. Burton states that an intellectual revolution is over when ‘accepted ideas have been overthrown or have been modified to include new ideas’ or ‘when the revolutionary ideas themselves become a part of the conventional wisdom’. Nevertheless, how does Burton come up with this conclusion? Basically, according to Burton, geographers such as Ackerman, Hartshorne, and Spate are in substantial agreement about something which in this case is quantitative revolution, then we are talking about “conventional wisdom”; thus, Burton concludes that the quantitative revolution is over. He further concludes that the revolution is over because of the rate at which schools of geography in North America are adding courses in quantitative methods to their requirements for graduate degrees. In one regard, he states that geographers must use quantitative methods to prove the ideography of geography but on the other hand, Burton uses “conventional wisdom” and rate of quantitative classes added to curriculums as proof for his statement that the revolution is over. He does, however, acknowledge that the revolution has many complications to be worked out. He furthermore emphasizes the importance of theories, ‘theory provides the sieve through which myriads of facts are sorted and without it the facts remain a meaningless jumble’; ‘a world without theory there are no exceptions; everything is unique’.

He further clarifies that the quantification of theory, the use of mathematics to express relationships can be supported on two main grounds; (1) it is more rigorous and (2) it is a considerable aid in the avoidance of self-deception. In this regard, Burton critiques a paper by Robinson, Lindberg, and Brinkman on rural farm population in which the authors made generalized correlations. Without using theory, according to Burton, correlations do not necessarily confirm a hypothesis and ‘it is well known that nonsense correlation’s are possible’.

Primarily, Burton emphasizes the importance of quantitative techniques to verify ideographic concepts or literature. Proving a theory or rather relationships to a theory, according to Burton, can best be explained by using quantitative terms.

While I agree with Burton to some extent, I don’t think Burton is exactly accurate in his conclusion that the quantitative revolution is over or at least I don’t agree with how he came up this sort of contradictory conclusion. I do think that measurement needs to be used to clarify and prove a geographical document. However, I think that quantitative methods could also be taken into the extreme and be unfeeling, so to speak. We must keep in mind the regard for human life.