The journal article "Sex-related Differences and Similarities in Geographic and Environmental Spatial Abilities", by Montello, D.R. et al., 1999 - review.
Introduction
The journal article "Sex-related Differences and Similarities in Geographic and Environmental Spatial Abilities", by Montello, D.R. et al., 1999, reviews the multidisciplinary literature on sex-related differences in spatial abilities, emphazing results that are most relevant to the development of geographic knowledge, and compare them to results achieved before, and as exemplified in the literature review.
The first part of this essay is compost by the resume of the main points of the journal article. In the second one, I have tried to comment the research in itself, as sex-related studies or discussions are, always surrounded of theorizing and speculation.
The journal article in analyse is divided by six parts: introduction; review of literature; methods; results; discussion; and finally the conclusion.
In the first part the authors give us a brief introduction of what they have proposed to study/ research, a study focus on sex differences in spatial abilities, as second the authors is relevant to the development of geographic knowledge. Yet, in the introduction it is revealed what they are bringing of new to innovate these types of study in this area of interest, "we do not restrict ourselves to pictorial and graphical spatial tasks, but include tasks involving environmental and geographic spaces"(Montello, D.R. et al., 1999).
This article is particularly concerned and focus on the performances in a way that more accurately both the differences and similarities between males and females in spatial ability, to describe sex-related patterns of performance.
In the review of literature section, the authors have presented us with numerous examples of researches concerned to the issue in analyse, carried out in the past. The examples are well elucidative "that males on average perform better than females", in respect to spatial abilities, (e.g. "Bryant (1992) reported that females made significantly higher errors pointing to target landmarks in the environment"). Revealing some exceptions in a few particular cases, (e.g. "Eals (1992) introduced a spatial task for which they predicted and found better performance by females.").
In sum, the existing literature relates us that males and ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
In the review of literature section, the authors have presented us with numerous examples of researches concerned to the issue in analyse, carried out in the past. The examples are well elucidative "that males on average perform better than females", in respect to spatial abilities, (e.g. "Bryant (1992) reported that females made significantly higher errors pointing to target landmarks in the environment"). Revealing some exceptions in a few particular cases, (e.g. "Eals (1992) introduced a spatial task for which they predicted and found better performance by females.").
In sum, the existing literature relates us that males and females differ in their performance of spatial and geographic tasks.
In the third part, Methods section, we get knowledge of, how the participants were selected, the tasks and measures applied, which are subdivided into seven categories: psychometric tasks; campus route learning; map learning; extant geographic knowledge; object location memory; verbal spatial descriptions; self-reputed measures; and finally design and procedure (see page 519, Tasks and Measures).
The following section, results, the researchers have used two different approaches, Univariable Results and Multivariable Results, to present the results obtained from the elaborated tasks. By Univariable results, we understand, that the results are presented separately, in other words the results are analysed by variables. On the other hand Multivariable results are the product of analyse obtained from the combination of the variables. If the first approach ignores the interrelationship between measures, the second one does not give us an objective and clearly answer, the results are a reflex of subjective interpretation, taking in account the results obtained from the tasks from every single variable.
The results of this study are discussed in the sixth part of the journal article, and it is largely confirmed what is suggested by the great part of the literature review, this means once again it has been proved that males and females do differ on average in their spatial abilities and styles on a particular tasks, though this study has expanded the relevance of the facts supported by more complex and detailed methods that are more geographically relevant.
On the seventh and last section, conclusions, it is explained why it was important to realize this research and consequently the implication of the results on "geographic research, educational practice, societal understanding, science and technology"
Once summarised the main constituent points of the article I shall pass to comment the article and the research in itself.
Feminist geographies have emerged during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Its tradition and areas of interest are extremely more connected to social sciences (Human Geography), than to Physical Geography. However, obviously there are women practising Physical Geography, as there are men practicing Human Geography. In my opinion, the study carried out, is clearly concerned to Physical Geography, as the own title suggests "...Environmental Spatial Abilities". So it was not new that males would be able to obtain better results in respect to this issue, as Geography had been for many years a traditional men's discipline, in other words men have been trained and familiarised for a longer time with the discipline than women, and as I have said the foundation of feminist geographies is not related to physical but human issues. And the results of the methods and tasks applied do not left any doubts about that.
However this study does not lead to a universal theory, which would permit us to affirm that all the males are better than females on issues related to spatial abilities.
Obviously we cannot put apart the inevitable genetic differences between males and females, and probably even more important than that, the sociologic and cultural factors that pattern, and conditionally are reflected on the behaviour between different gender. By this I mean, if the researchers had studied males and women as individuals, starting from a point of equality, I am sure they would have found that some individuals of the feminine gender are better than some individuals of the male gender in respect to the issue in cause, spatial abilities.
The differences between generalising and make a conclusion from a small sample, from an individually study could lead us to misinterpretations and wrong conclusions, such as all the males are better physical geographers than all females.
Yet and to finalise I would like to comment the methods used to select the participants. First of all the number of males (36) and females (43) were different, which in my opinion, it does not aid to establish a proper balance between the results, secondly if on the one hand all the participants had lived in Santa Barbara area for about the same number of years, on the other hand it makes me questioning about other possibilities of study: would they obtain the same results if they had selected participants form different places to complete the tasks about a unknown area? According to the article (literature review and research in itself) in average males would have succeeded better than females, however it does not pass of a mere hypothesis.
Conclusion
The journal article present us with examples of studies realised in the past about spatial abilities, however the authors wanted to deep and confirm the theory of, in average males perform better than females on issues related to environmental and spatial abilities.
However in my opinion studies concerned to environmental and spatial abilities, should not be divided into gender categories, but to be studied individually in a way to get a better knowledge and understanding, why and when some determinate individuals perform better than the others in a certain and determinate conditions.
References
Montello, D.R. et al., 1999, "Sex-related differences and similarities in geographic and environmental spatial abilities", Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 89, 515-34
Women and Geography Study Group, 1997, Feminist Geographies: Explorations in diversity and difference (Longman, Harlow).
