This short commentary uses a recent question on an Undergraduate examination paper to put pedagogy at the heart of the canon debate. It argues that different teaching practices across various institutions teaching geography have influenced constructions of canonicity, and that this impacts on Keighren et al.’s (2012) argument about the relative status of the ‘canon’ versus the ‘classic’.
BoasF (1888) The Central Eskimo. Washington, DC: Bureau of Ethnology.
2.
CastreeN (2009) Commentary: Charles Darwin and the geographers. Environment and Planning A41(10): 2293–2298.
3.
DriverF (2010) Commentary: Charles Darwin and the geographers: unnatural selection. Environment and Planning A42(1): 1–4.
4.
GouldP (1985) The Geographer at Work. London, UK and New York, NY: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
5.
KeighrenIMAbrahamssonCdella DoraV (2012) On canonical geographies. Dialogues in Human Geography2(3). doi: 10.1177/2043820612468534
6.
PowellRC (2012) Echoes of the new geography? History and philosophy of geography I. Progress in Human Geography36(4): 518–526.
7.
SauerCO (1956) The education of a geographer. Annals of the Association of American Geographers46(3): 287–299.
8.
School of Geography and the Environment (2011) Report of the Examiners in the Second Public Examination in Geography, Trinity Term 2011. Division of Social Sciences, University of Oxford, UK, October.
