State Atlases: Funding Sources and Thematic Content∗

zyxw zyxw zy zyxwvuts VOLUME42, NUMBER 3, AUGUST,1990 bus, OH: Department of Geography, Ohio State University Research Foundation. Rivizzigno, V. 1976. Cognitive representation of an urban area. In NSF Final R e p o r t Grant #GS-37969, R. G. Golledge and J. N. Rayner. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University. Spector, A. 1978. An analysis of urban spatial imagery. Ph.D. diss. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University. Timmermans, H. J. P. 1982. Consumer choice of shopping centre: An information integration approach. Regional Studies 16:171-83. 313 Winograd, T. 1975. Frame representations and the declarative/ procedural controversy. In Representation a i d U n d e r s t a n d i n g : Studies in C o g n i t i v e Science, ed. D. Bobrow and A. Col- lins. New York: Academic Press. Zannaras, G. 1968. On empirical analysis of urban and neighborhood perception. M.A. thesis. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University. Zannaras, G. 1973.On analysis of cognitive and objective characteristics of the city: Their influence of movements to the city center. Ph.D. diss. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University. zyxwvutsrq zyxwvuts Pro essional Geo rapher, 42(3), 1990, pp. 313-323 0 Jopyright 1890 by Association of American Geographers zyx zyxwvut STATE ATLASES FUNDING SOURCES AND THEMATIC CONTENT* Robert B. Kent University of Akron Thomas J. Tobias New York State Department of Transportation zyx Is the thematic content of state atlases inpuenced by the primary sources of atlas funding, private or public! Maps portraying economic conditions, the physical environment, and population dominated state atlases produced between 1970 and 1986, accounting for over 80% of all thematic content. Funding sources effected modest differences in content. Publicly funded state atlases devoted more attention to introductory, physical, and cultural topics, and privately funded state atlases emphasized population, industrial, and agricultural themes. Key Words: state atlases, thematic content, research funding. T h e influence that f u n d i n g agencies, b o t h public a n d private, exert over t h e direction a n d goals of t h e research t h e y f u n d h a s increasingly concerned scholars in recent years. They have suggested that those who finance t h e research may directly or indirectly influence t h e direction or results t o suit their own commer- * This study is based in part on the results of Tobias’ unpublished MS paper, ”State Atlases: The Influence of Funding on Production and Thematic Content, 1970-1986.” The authors appreciate the time and effort of the state atlas authors and editors who responded to our questionnaire, and the critical comments of Charles B. Monroe, University of Akron, on earlier drafts and the comments of the referees and editors. cia1 or political agenda, or that researchers inadvertently modify t h e i r research or results t o curry favor w i t h those who provide the f u n d s (cf. Weiss 1989). T h e priorities a n d availability of research funding change as t h e policies of institutions providing t h e funding change. Federally f u n d e d research in t h e United States increased in t h e period bet w e e n 1975 and 1985 by almost 30% i n inflation adjusted dollars; yet engineeri n g funds experienced significant gains w h i l e social science funds were reduced by almost half (Carnegie Foundation for t h e Advancement of Teaching 1987, 36). F u n d i n g f o r international development research w a s reduced by m a n y public a n d private agencies d u r i n g t h e late 1970s a n d 314 zyxwvut THE PROFESSIONAL GEOGRAPHER early 1980s, and those funds which were made available, were more narrowly focused in research programs articulated by the granting institution rather than being ”user-driven” (Gilbert 1987,199; Gorman 1981, 473). Research funding in many fields is unabashedly “funder-driven.” In agricultural research, for example, corporate farm operations and large seed and chemical companies have for years essentially set the research agendas for many scientists in land grant colleges. Other academic collaborations with industry and government also experience influences and controls on research agendas (Logan and Stampen 1985; Pokrass 1988). The influence of funding agencies is less evident in geographical research. Many geographers do not depend as much on outside research money or on large budgets to conduct their research programs, finding adequate funding within their home institution or simply funding their own research. Also, much of the outside research funding generated by geographers comes from the National Science Foundation’s Geography and Regional Science Program, whose funding distribution is reportedly user-driven (Moriarty 1982, 322; Baerwald 1988, 3). The possible influences of funding sources on the research agendas of geographers, nevertheless, deserves our scrutiny since some areas of geographic research rely on funds from outside sources. Atlases, one of the most publicly visible products in which to demonstrate the results of geographic and cartographic research, often depend for their production on government agencies, development boards, and private foundations. State atlases can be expensive to produce; the recently published Atlas of Pennsylvania, for example, cost over $600,000, exclusive of printing expenses (Cuff 1990). Agencies supporting atlas production commonly justify the expense as necessary to promote awareness and a positive image of a region (Monmonier 1981,201). Indeed, Stephenson and Galneder (1969, 18) noted that 16%of state atlases published between 1935 and 1968 could be classified as promotional and a further 26% as resource inventory atlases “designed to identify and portray cartographically the human and natural resources of the state.” Under such circumstances it seems possible that those funding the production of the atlas may influence its scope and direction. State atlases have been produced since 1825in the United States, and the 20 years after the Civil War saw the publication of nearly 30 state atlases. These early atlases, however, were largely limited to reference maps providing place name information. Thematic state atlases began to appear in the 1930s (Stephenson and Galneder 1969, 15-17), and since 1970 the number of general thematic and special topical state atlases such as resource or economic atlases has rapidly expanded (Cox 1979; Czerniak and Perrone 1983; Miller 1982; Monmonier 1981). Considerable expense is involved in producing and publishing a state atlas, and geographers and cartographers commonly depend on funding sources outside their departments or universities. A critical question, therefore, is: Do the sources of funding lead to any significant differences in the thematic content of state atlases? The primary purposes of this study are to identify the sources of funding for recently published state atlases in the United States and to compare the thematic content of atlases funded primarily by private sources with those funded by public sources. A secondary objective is to update information on the thematic content of state atlases produced since 1970. The study categorizes atlases as publicly or privately funded based on the results of a survey questionnaire to authors and editors of recent state atlases. It then documents the percentage of maps and map space in each atlas devoted to different categories of thematic content. The variation in thematic content among the publicly and privately funded groups is analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. The conclusion speculates on why thematic content might vary with z zyxwvu zyxwvuts zyxwvu zyxwv VOLUME42, NUMBER3, AUGUST,1990 the funding source and compares these recent trends in the thematic content of state atlas to earlier trends. Finally, it suggests that cartographers, and geographers in general, should be alert to the possible impact of funding sources on the directions and results of their research. Methodology Only state atlases published in the United States between 1970 and 1986 were examined, and only those with general thematic content. Atlases focusing upon a single issue, such as economics or natural resources, were not considered. Little information regarding funding sources may be derived from the atlases themselves. Therefore, questionnaires were distributed to the authors and editors of the most recently published state thematic atlases (Table 1). The initial questionnaire response rate was satisfactory, but follow-up letters were sent to encourage the greatest possible response. In all, 23 of the 26 questionnaires (88%)were returned. Six of the responses had to be eliminated from the study for insufficient detail. The atlases were then classified as publicly or privately funded based on which sources provided the majority of funds. Ten of the atlases were classified as publicly funded, and the remaining seven as privately funded (Table 1). The tabulation of thematic content followed. Both the number of maps and the amount of map space for each category of thematic content were enumerated. The categories used to classify thematic content were the following, as suggested by Kent (1986), Leontyev (1974), Nicholson (1952), and Salichtchev (1960): introductory, physical, population, economic, cultural, and miscellaneous. The economic category was divided into industrial, extractive, agricultural, and interaction/ commercial subcategories. The previous authors had suggested a regional category, especially for world and national atlases, but we excluded this category due to a lack of regional maps in most state atlases. Map space was measured and re- 315 corded in square centimeters. A difference of means t-test was used to determine i f any statistically significant differences existed between the publicly and privately funded atlases with respect to the percentage of maps and map space allocated to each of the thematic content categories. Guidelines Several guidelines and definitions were introduced to minimize potential bias and to maintain consistency in the categorization and measurement of map content. These guidelines and definitions were essential in tabulating total number of maps as well as total map space for each of the content categories. Each map was tabulated by its thematic content. Most themes were covered by a single map; however, some used several to portray yearly, monthly, or seasonal distributions or distributions over smaller areas or by particular groups. For example, several small scale maps may have displayed seasonal climatic patterns or distributions of single species of wildlife. Although such small scale maps dealt with a common general theme (climate or wildlife), in their tabulation here each was labeled and counted separately. Inset maps, used to enlarge sections of a smaller scale map, were not counted separately. Map space included all space bounded by a neatline. Tables or figures presented in legends were recorded as map space. When maps used tabular or figure-like symbolization rather than conventional symbolization, as in the Atlas of Hawaii to portray monthly variables at various point locations, these tables or figures were included as part of the map space. The space devoted to maps not bounded by a neatline was measured from the greatest vertical and horizontal distances of the map elements, which included titles, state boundaries, legends, sources, or accompanying text. Textual information enclosed within the defined map space often plays a vital role in map interpretation and it was considered as part of the map space. Map space also included three- zy 316 zyxwvut zyxwvu THE PROFESSIONAL GEOGRAPHER TABLE 1 STATE ATLASES SURVEYED: 1970-1986 Atlas An Atlas of Indiana Atlas of Louisiana Atlas of Hawaii Atlas of Texas Atlas of Oregon Atlas of Maryland Atlas of Michigan Atlas of Florida Atlas of Utah Atlas of Georgia Atlas of Alabama The New Florida Atlas: Patterns of the Sunshine State North Carolina Atlas: Portrait of a Changing Southern State Ohio: An Atlas Pennsylvania Atlas: A Thematic Atlas of the Keystone State Atlas of California Atlas of Colorado The Atlas of Wisconsin An Atlas of Iowa Atlas of Kentucky New York: An Atlas Atlas of Hawaii Pennsylvania Atlas: A Thematic Atlas of the Keystone State Atlas of Mississippi The Arizona Atlas New Mexico in Maps Date - Principal author(s) /editor(s) Questionnaire response Chosen for Majority study of fundinga 1970 1972 1973 1976 1976 1977 1977 1981 1981 1986 1973 Kingsbury, R., et al. Newton, M. Armstrong, W. Arbingast, S., et al. Loy, W., Allan, S. & Patton, C. Thompson, D. Sommers, L. Fernald, E. Greer, D. Hodler, T. & Schretter, H. Lineback, N. public public public public public public public public public public private 1974 Wood, R. & Fernald, E private 1975 1975 Clay, J., et al. Collins, C. private private 1975 1979 1985 1974 1974 1977 1978 1983 Rizza, P., Hughes, J. & Allan, 5. Donley, M., et al. Erickson, K. Robinson, A. & Culver, J. Collins, C. Karan, P. & Mather, C. Collins, C. Armstrong, W. private private private unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown 1982 1974 1981 1986 Rizza, P., Hughes, J. & Allan, 5. Cross, R. & Wales, R. Hecht, M. & Reeves, R. Williams, J. unknown unknown unknown unknown Unknown due to inadequate or no response zyxwv zyxwvu dimensional maps, cross-sectional maps, cartograms, and photographs of historical maps. Definitions The following definitions were employed in the classification of maps into content categories. Introductory maps were general purpose maps depicting a combination of point locations, cultural and physical features, and a description of a state’s relative location in the United States. Such maps most often appeared at the beginning of an atlas; however, they occasionally appeared at the end in an appendix or gazetteer. All were considered introductory regardless of their placement. Physical maps comprised a wide array of topics including a state’s physiography, topography, hydrography, geology, biogeography, geomorphology, pedology, vegetation, climate, and weather. Other unique topics included air quality of polluted areas or locations of natural hazards or catastrophes. Index maps showing the current extent of US Geological Survey topographic mapping and aerial photographic coverage were also considered in the physical map category. zyxwvu zyxwv VOLUME42, NUMBER 3, AUGUST,1990 Population maps emphasized human distributions and demographic characteristics, such as birth and death rates, distribution of urbanized areas, and personal or family income. Maps showing the distribution of ethnic groups, health, educational, or general employment status among the population were also included. However, maps showing locations of specific health and education facilities were classified as cultural, and employment status was classified under the industrial, extractive, interaction /commercial, or agricultural categories, depending on the type of employment. Economic maps were classified into industrial, extractive, agricultural, and interaction/commercial subcategories. Industrial maps showed the location of manufacturing and construction activities as well as employment values and wages for various industrial groups. Also included were maps of energy distribution, often showing electrical, oil, and gas lines or refineries, and maps of timber harvest (quantity). Maps of specific mineral and energy deposits and commercial forested areas were placed in the extractive category, along with maps of commercial fishing areas. Maps of sport or recreational fishing locations, however, were classified as cultural. Agricultural maps illustrated distributions of general and agricultural land use, farm size, land value, employment, crops, livestock, and farm expenditures. Interaction/commercia1 maps emphasized communications, transportation, finance and tax base, commerce, and values and employment of selected services. Cultural maps encompassed the greatest variety of topics, including distributions of religious denominations, voluntary and fraternal organizations, archaeological and recreational sites, tourist attractions, and locations of fine and performing arts centers. Maps of historic importance were also included, specifically those emphasizing early settlement locations. However, maps displaying historic data on a particular theme were 317 placed in the appropriate thematic category. All of the atlases contained a few maps that did not fit neatly into the content categories utilized here. These maps were classified as miscellaneous. Examples are maps depicting military or political themes. Results Funding Funding sources for state atlas production varied greatly. The principal sources of publicly funded atlases were university foundations, state governments, and in some cases state university presses. Additional funds and in-kind contributions also were acquired from the university geography departments responsible for atlas production. The principal sources for privately funded atlases were corporations, private foundations, and publishing houses. About two-thirds of all state atlases received funding from two to four sources, while the remainder were entirely dependent on one source of financial support. The proportion of atlases dependent on multiple sources was the same for both publicly and privately funded at lases. Enough detail on sources and amounts of funding was provided for 17 of the 26 atlases surveyed to categorize them as either publicly or privately funded. Overall, 10 atlases received all or the majority of their monies from public sources, while seven were primarily dependent upon private donations. In most cases, all monies were received from either public or private sources with relatively few atlases receiving funds from both public and private contributors. Only three of the 17 atlases considered here received funding from both public and private sources. The amount of funding varied considerably among the atlases examined here, ranging from $860 to over $167,000 in inflation adjusted dollars (using 1967 as the base year). The median amount for all atlases was $59,000, but amounts differed zyx 318 zyxwvuts zyxw THE PROFESSIONAL GEOGRAPHER TABLE 2 THEMATIC CONTENT IN ALL STATE ATLASES ~ ~ Percentage of maps Category Introductory Physical Mean 2.8 23'6 Population Industrial 9.6 Extractive 3.0 Agricultural Interaction/ commercial 12.5 10.4 Cultural Miscellaneous 73 Percentage of map space min max State min max 0.0 21.9 10.2 56.5 6.9 43.0 2.1 32.5 0.4 7.2 2.6 34.9 4.8 15.8 1.6 32.3 0.0 35.2 Ohio Hawaii Alabama Oregon Utah Maryland Utah Texas Texas Colorado Oregon Ohio Colorado Mary1and Ohio Louisiana Indian a Utah notably between the publicly and privately funded groups. The median for the publicly funded state atlases was $103,500, and only $34,000 for the privately funded atlases. These statistics, however, reflect only the actual dollars received for the atlas production. They do not reflect the total cost of state atlas production, which often includes in-kind contributions of space, equipment, and personnel (faculty and graduate students) from geography departments, universities, and others. Content The percentage of map space and the percentage of maps in each content category were calculated for all state atlases included in the study. The mean percentage of maps and the mean percentage of map space for each content category were often very similar (Table 2). The greatest differences (about 3%) between the two measures occurred in the introductory, cultural, and miscellaneous categories. The mean percentage of maps and the mean percentage of map space in the mean 5.5 22'7 9'2 2.8 12" 13'7 4.8 min max State min max 0.0 19.8 11.9 32.5 8.3 43.2 2.8 30.1 0.4 7.6 2.6 35.6 6.1 20.3 2.3 28.7 0.0 7.5 Ohio Oregon Alabama Colorado Utah Maryland Hawaii Texas Texas Utah North Carolina Ohio Louisiana North Carolina Ohio Louisiana Indiana Utah physical, population, industrial, and extractive content categories were essentially the same. The thematic categories varied considerably in the percentage of maps and of map space they received (Table 2). The physical and population categories dominated the atlases, with mean percentages of thematic content of about 23 and 19% respectively, and with little difference between the percent of maps and percent map space. These two categories account in the mean for almost half of all thematic content found in state atlases. The cultural category and three of the economic subcategories, agricultural, interaction/ commercial, and industrial, each accounted for about 10%of all map content, again with only minor differences between percentage of maps and percentage of map space. If the economic category was considered as a whole, then it became the single most dominant map category in both percentage of maps and of map space (about 35%).The thematic categories that received the least attention included the zyxwvu zyxwv VOLUME 42, NUMBER3, AUGUST,1990 miscellaneous, extractive, and introductory categories. Generally, 5% or less of maps and of map space are devoted to these thematic categories. The discrepancy between the two measures of content were greatest in these latter categories, with the measures differing by as much as 3% in the introductory and miscellaneous categories. Factors other than funding sources contribute to the selection of thematic content for state atlases. These include the goals of the atlas, the availability of data, the professional orientation of the authors or editors, time constraints, and the availability of funds (Stephenson and Galneder 1969,25). Some of the resulting idiosyncrasies in the composition of atlas content are revealed by the extreme values for thematic content among the various content categories (Table 2). The emphasis on particular content categories in any one atlas may bear little relationship to the geography, economy, or history of a state. The economy of Texas, for example, is strongly linked to petroleum and natural gas production, yet the Atlas of Texas devotes less attention to extractive topics than any other state atlas studied (less than 0.5%).The extreme values noted in Table 2 may, in other cases, well reflect the geographic, economic, or political realities of the state. The Atlas of Hawaii devotes considerable attention to introductory topics focusing on its relative location with respect to the US mainland and the countries of the Pacific Rim. The state atlases of Colorado and Utah examine in detail extractive industries which are important to the economies of both states. Authors or editors of some state atlases may also focus on topics for which statistical data are readily available. Ohio:A n Atlas, for example, devotes nearly 35% of its thematic content to agriculture, even though the value of industrial production in Ohio has far outstripped the value of agricultural production since around the turn of the century. Maps of celery, cauliflower, kale, hot peppers, and spinach acreage are included even though their 319 agricultural and economic significance are extremely limited and less than a few hundred acres of each are planted in the entire state. The training and interests of atlas editors or authors may exert a strong influence on atlas content (Stephenson and Galneder 1969, 25). The Atlas of Louisiana, for instance, devotes nearly 30%of all thematic coverage to cultural topics. In the Atlas of Oregon over 55% of the maps and 30% of the map space are devoted to the physical environment. The heavy emphasis on culture in the one case and physical environment in the other may be explained by the fact that a cultural geographer edited the Atlas of Louisiana and the editor of the Atlas of Oregon has strong interests in physical geography. These factors notwithstanding, differences in thematic contept between publicly and privately funded atlases were apparent in some categories (Fig. 1). Publicly financed state atlases placed greater emphasis on introductory, cultural, and physical themes. About 4% of the maps and 7% of the map space were devoted to introductory topics in publicly-funded atlases, whereas privately funded atlases devoted about 1%and 3.5%, respectively. Cultural content exhibited a similar pattern, with about 3% more maps and 5% more map space being devoted to this theme in publicly funded atlases. The percentage of physical maps was higher by 5% in publicly financed atlases, although little difference was evident with regard to the percentage of map space (Fig. 1 and Table 3). Privately funded state atlases gave more emphasis to population and economyspecifically industry a n d agriculture. About 2%more maps and map space were devoted to population topics and 2-3% more to industrial themes. The greatest differences were evident in the agricultural category where the privately financed atlases devoted over 6%more maps to the topic and almost 4% more map space (Fig. 1 and Table 3). If all the economic subcategories were considered together, then the importance of economic themes zy zyxwvu zyxwvu zyxwv 320 zyxwvut THE PROFESSIONAL GEOGRAPHER Figure 1. Thematic content of publicly and privately funded state atlases VOLUME42, NUMBER 3, AUGUST,1990 zyxw 321 TABLE 3 THEMATIC CONTENT IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATELY FUNDED ATLASES Category Population Industrial Extractive 2-tail probability Mean percentage of map space 2-tail probability zyx zyxwvutsrq Introductory Physical Funding Mean percentage of maps Agricultural Interaction I commercial Cultural Miscellaneous public private public private public private public private public private public private public private public private public private 4.0 1.1 25.7 20.6 18.2 19.8 8.1 11.6 2.6 3.5 9.8 16.4 10.3 10.6 12.1 9.3 8.6 6.6 in the privately funded atlases was further underscored. As a group, economic maps comprised a total of 42%of the maps and 38%of the map space in the privately funded atlases as opposed to 31 and 32%, respectively, in the publicly funded atlases (Fig. 1).Essentially no difference existed between the publicly and privately funded atlases in the amount of attention given to extractive, interaction/commercial, and miscellaneous topics. In all thematic content categories and subcategories, however, t-tests for difference-of-means revealed no statistically significant differences between either the percentage of maps or of map space between publicly and privately funded state atlases (Table 3 ) . 0.191 0.391 0.659 0.402 0.359 0.177 0.885 0.447 0.573 7.0 3.4 22.8 22.5 17.4 19.8 8.4 10.3 2.7 2.8 9.0 12.8 11.8 12.4 15.7 10.8 4.8 4.8 0.206 0.945 0.569 0.638 0.954 0.403 0.783 0.233 0.997 centage of map space devoted to 10 different thematic categories. The results of this study are subject to interpretation. On the one hand, the use of a difference-of-means t-test reveals that no statistically significant differences in content categories exist between the groups of publicly and privately funded state atlases. Yet, the lack of statistical significance may be misleading. The sample size of state atlases utilized in this study is relatively small (17), and differences between the two groups would have to be extremely large for the corresponding t-values to be statistically significant. If it were possible to produce larger sample sizes, the existing differences in several content categories would probably be statistically significant. However, the total number of state atlases published during the study period was only 26, making a larger sample size impossible. Nevertheless, the analysis of descriptive statistics reveals a tendency for variation in content between publicly and zyx zyxwvut Conclusion This study evaluated the effects of differing funding sources, public or private, on the thematic content of state atlases. Thematic content was compared on the basis of both percentage of maps and per- 322 zyxwvut privately financed atlases in several thematic categories. Publicly funded atlases appear to emphasize introductory, physical, and cultural topics, while privately funded state atlases emphasize topics centering on population and the economy, especially industry and agriculture. Publicly funded atlases thus tend to favor noneconomic topics and privately funded atlases to favor economic ones. One might argue that these variations are logical and perhaps even expected since they reflect the social and environmental concerns of the public sector on the one hand, and the economic concerns of the private sector on the other. Another explanation is that the differences in thematic content revealed here reflect different perspectives on the atlas production process. Privately funded atlases are generally commercial ventures, produced with fewer financial and personnel resources, and with greater pressures to complete production according to a fixed time-table. These constraints may lead atlas editors and authors to focus on the production of maps with economic and population themes since data for these maps are readily available from census sources and easily compiled for map production. Publicly funded atlases, on the other hand, may have fewer time constraints and may have more flexibility to produce physical or cultural maps, for which the research and compilation are frequently time consuming. The results of this study contrast with those of earlier atlas studies in thematic content. Stephenson and Galneder’s study (1969, 25) of state atlases published between 1935 and 1968 is of particular interest. Their study reveals the following distribution of maps by thematic categories: general (3%), physical environment (IS%), economic (63%), and sociocultural (16%).Little change has occurred since their study in the emphasis accorded to general or introductory topics and the physical environment. However, major changes have occurred in the economic and socio-cultural categories. In the post-1970 period, the number of maps de- THE PROFESSIONAL GEOGRAPHER voted to economic topics declined from 63% to about 36%, while the number of maps devoted to socio-cultural topics (population and culture) increased from 16 to almost 30%. This change may represent geographers’ increased emphasis on social and behavioral research in the past 20 years. Few state atlases include regional or sectional maps. The Atlas of California and the Atlas of Oregon are significant exceptions; each atlas includes attractive and detailed regional maps of its state. In their review of state atlases published prior to 1970, Stephenson and Galneder (1969,27) lamented the absence of regional and sectional maps. Unfortunately, this practice continues to be the rule. A study of national atlases (Kent 1986) provides an additional perspective on the results of this study. Maps focusing on economic topics and the physical environment dominate both state and national atlases, comprising about 35% and 25% respectively of all thematic content. But a notable divergence in the thematic focus of these two types of atlases occurs in other categories. Nearly 19%of state atlas maps are devoted to population, while only 11% of national atlas maps are devoted to the topic. Similarly, cultural themes receive about 10% of the content space in state atlases, but somewhat more (14%),in national atlases. In their examination of state atlas content, Stephenson and Galneder (1969,25) noted that thematic content of state atlases may be influenced by the author‘s training and interests, the basic research materials available including existing maps, and the time and funds available for preparation. The results of this study suggest that the sources of funding for state atlas production are also a factor in the determination of the thematic content of state atlases. As geographers seek to be more competitive in obtaining funding to support their research projects, they may find it profitable to scrutinize further how the sources of that funding may affect the directions of their research and the published results. zyx zyxwv zyxwvu zyxwvu VOLUME42, NUMBER 3, AUGUST,1990 Literature Cited Baerwald, Thomas. 1988. The NSF Geography and Regional Science Program. The Association of American Geographers Newsletter 23:3. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 1987. The ups and downs of federal funding for R&D. Change 19(6):35-39. Cox, Carleton W. 1979. A critical examination of state and provincial thematic atlases. Bulletin, Special Libraries Association, Geography and M a p Division 117:8-16. Cuff, David J. 1990. Personal communication. Czerniak, Robert J., and Gail Perrone. 1983. State Atlases: A Bibliography. Vance Bibliographies, Public Administration Series, P-1213. Monticello, IL: Vance Bibliographies. Gilbert, Alan. 1987. Current issues in research on Latin America. Bulletin of Latin American Research 6(2):197-207. Gorman, Lyn. 1981. The funding of development research. World Development 9(5):46583. Kent, Robert B. 1986. National atlases: The influence of wealth and political orientation on content. Geography 71(2):122-30. Leontyev, N. F. 1974. National atlases. Soviet Geography 15(2):109-17. Logan, Lawrence B., and Jacob 0. Stampen. 1985. Smoke stack meets ivory tower: Collaborations with local industry. Educationnl Record 66( 1):26-29. Miller, E. Willard. 1982. State atlases: Major sources of spatial information. Iournal of Geography 81(1):34-36. 323 Monmonier, Mark S. 1981. Trends in atlas development. Cartographin 18(2):187-213. Moriarty, Barry M. 1982. A geography of research-grant getting in geography. Professional Geographer 34:322-31. Nicholson, Norman L. 1952. A survey of single-country atlases. Geographical Bulletin 21935. Pokrass, Richard J. 1988. Corporate giving to two year colleges. Currents January:38-40. Salichtchev, K. A. 1960. National Atlases: Their History, Analysis, and Wnys to lmprovement and Standardization. Toronto: University of Toronto Press (Cartographica Monograph 4). Stephenson, Richard W., and Mary Galneder. 1969. Anglo-American state and provincial thematic atlases: A survey and bibliography. The Canadian Cartographer 6(1):15-45. Weiss, T. 1989. Research that the U.S. government is paying for should not be tainted by any possibility of bias. Chronicle of Higher Educnfion 36(0ctober 4):A56. ROBERT B. KENT (I'h.D., Syracuse) is Associate Professor of Geography at the University of Akron, Akron OH 44325. His research interests include regional planning and development, Latin America, and cartography. THOMAS J. TOBIAS (M.S., Akron) is a member of the Photogrammetry Section of the Mapping Services Bureau of the New York State Department of Transportation, Albany, NY 12232. His interests and duties include large-scale digital, topographic, and planimetric mapping, analytical aerotriangulation, and digital terrain modelling.