I think that the problem is not only a british one - even if Internet, E-Mail and other virtual ressources are used by many geographers (and geography-students) they are not used by all. All the people I know sharing the list, are research assistants but not porfessors - and in my opinion that is the case why other don't take part in the discussions in this list: They don't even know that it exists because it isn't promoted by the research personell. So they don't even see the chance to take part in interesting discussions, improve their English and try to get known by other people.
For CGF there are two chances now:
The first would mean to promote the list and try to get many other people joining so that the next stats show that critical geographers have joined the list in such a great amount that the british geographers are the minority ;-) - but how about the quality of the list?
Secondly the list remains as it is - it seems to me that only interested people have joined the list and it is not a problem of the origin of the people or of the representation of the countries where they come from to have high-quality discussions on a high level.
Yours
Dipl.-Geogr. Christian Rohrbach
Institut für Kulturgeographie, Stadt-
und Regionalforschung
Senckenberganlage 36
D-60325 Frankfurt am Main
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Simon
Batterbury
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 1999 10:12 PM
To: Niall Johnson
Cc: Critical Geography Forum
Subject: Re: CGF statistics
I think it is a shame this is so British-focussed still, after several
years. Why is this? Linked to the RGS/Shell debacle? Or because of the
history of the Forum? Or (more likely)
the perspective it espouses?
I would like to see it represent critical
geographers and their work - this is not the same as what critical
British academic geographers do!
On Sat, 12 Jun 1999, Niall Johnson wrote:
> Hello,
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|