Quantitative Revolution

Quantitative revolution is the not very felicitous term that arose to describe the partial transformation of geography from a merely descriptive science into one that included the development of a theory of spatial organization and behavior, formal modeling of these processes, and the use of appropriate statistical methods to test the expectations from theory.

Participants preferred the term scientific, emphasizing a fundamental shift from an ideographic (descriptive) to a nomothetic (formal theory) epistemology. Revolution is accurate, as there was assuredly an intentional break with what had come to be viewed as an inherently interesting and integrative field of study but one that had embarrassingly failed to go beyond “what” to the unsolved questions of “how” and ”why.” Instead of providing maps and data as part of general education and for scientists in other disciplines to theorize about, participants were determined to begin to explain the patterns of human as well as physical processes on the land. The term quantitative arose from the novelty of the use of inferential statistics and the embracing of simple mathematical models, although the publications of almost all the “pioneers” of the revolution concerned mainly theory of spatial structure and movement.

The inspiration for the quantitative revolution was primarily theoretical, not statistical, most obviously in the work of Walter Christaller (central place theory), Torsten Hägerstrand (Lund University, diffusion and simulation), and Fred Schaefer and Thomas McCarty (University of Iowa), and at the University of Washington, Edward Ullman and especially William Garrison in turn influenced by the rise of regional science, which was initiated by Walter Isard. Beginning in 1958, a cadre of students spread the movement with revolutionary fervor, as courses in location theory and statistics arose in Chicago, Northwestern, Michigan, and, in the United Kingdom, Bristol and Cambridge. Systematic theory and statistics began to be incorporated into the wider curriculum in both physical and human geography.

Although it originated in the 1950s, by 1963 the new movement had succeeded in becoming a vocal and active presence at dozens of institutions, including most major departments with doctoral programs in geography. National Science Foundation (NSF)–sponsored symposia on quantitative geography facilitated the rapid growth, via the circulation of ardent and informative “discussion papers,” beginning at the University of Washington in 1954, and through publications in the leading journals.

The second decade (1964–1973) was one of institutionalization, as the theoretical revolution in fact succeeded in transforming geography, and then of the expected critique and counterrevolution. Institutionalization took two forms. Most important, yet underreported and underappreciated, was that the need and quest for theory [Page 2330]became incorporated into the fabric of the discipline, in research, in teaching and publication, and in all branches of the field. Less universally, common statistical procedures were used almost routinely in evaluating the results of research. Significant numbers of theoretical expectations about locations of firms and activities, urban structure and change, trade and transportation, administrative organization and electoral behavior; migration and communication, just to mention a few areas in human geography, were verified or found wanting. By 1973, the “new geography” had been incorporated in texts as well as journals, for example, Geographical Analysis, which began in 1969.

...