Computers, Society, and Nature

I have always considered GIS to be a science since it allowed me to undertake analysis of material in a way that resulted in a new understanding of spatial data. It maintained clear methodology and followed the scientific process. However, I clearly saw the programs used to reach such conclusions as a necessary tool of the trade. It was not until reading the 1997 piece “GIS: Tool or Science” by Wright et al. that I even knew there could be conflict in my conceptualization of GIS.

Wright et al. determined the act of “doing GIS’ to be divided into three categories: using GIS as a tool for research purposes, actively making GIS a more advanced tool, and doing GIS as a science, where further scientific advancement stemmed from initial GIS capabilities. While this article introduced an interesting topic of debate, my final understanding of the subject was not clarified much further by the GIS-L analysis presented.

The evolution of GIS since 1997 is obvious when reading this paper. I think the argument has advanced beyond many of the initial questions posed. For example, one person postulated that GIS would become more of a science when it divorced itself from geography – we could argue that GIS is now being used for other projects beyond basic spatial interpretation.

Another interesting note is there are many questions, and the paper as a whole, that I would argue remain very relevant to current discussion. Google Scholar shows that this piece has been cited 254 times and I personally wonder if GIS has evolved more into a science since the publishing of this piece. Linking back to our class discussion, if GIS is seen to only create maps then of course it will be recognized as a tool, but if further capabilities are imagined and implemented, a new science emerges.

-VdeV

Goodchild’s (1992) article is centered on the fear that unless GIS makes the transition from being considered a system to a science, it will soon fade away as another technological fad.  One of Goodchild’s main concerns at the time was that GIS, though inherently useful, was restrained by its problematic integration into other fields (i.e. spatial analysis).  He attributed this to a focus on data management rather than analysis—a result of the lack of motivation to develop the necessary technology due to the “lucrative” yet “unsophisticated” needs of GIS in the commercial world (1992:38)—and also to the sheer obscurity of spatial analysis as a technique.  Currently, spatial analysis functions as an extension of ArcMap and is fundamentally a part of GIS as I know it.

Though Goodchild’s article was riddled with unanswered questions (at the time) I think he played an integral role in developing the case for GIScience by highlighting how multidisciplinary the field really is.  For example we look at spatial analytics, and with the wisdom of the future I believe this specifically was an important point to broach.  Bearing in mind that this system vs. science debate is still ongoing, I think the development of a concrete tie to analytics was beneficial for those making the case for GIS as a science.  Goodchild, an avid member of the academic community, recognizes academia’s requirement of a certain level of ‘rigor’ for a field to be considered a science and spatial analytics, now at the heart of GIS, absolutely brings this edge.

-BannerGrey

Over the past twenty years, opinions on what “’doing GIS’” entails have been debated. In “GIS: Tool or Science?” (1997), Wright was able to categorize “64 postings from 40 individuals” on a GIS-L forum into three groupings of what “’doing GIS’” means (346-347). Regardless of whether GIS should be defined as a tool, a toolmaker, or a science, Wright was able to present all three positions in an unbiased way, allowing the reader to determine their own opinions about the debate.

Wright mentions that there is not necessarily one ultimately correct or authoritative position, rather the entire “continuum” between tool and science should be equally acknowledged because all viewpoints use GIS for different purposes (358). Hence, maybe it does not even matter if “’doing GIS’” is correctly defined, maybe there should be a consensus that GIS can be applied in different ways and be accepted for different reasons.

Although the debate is still occurring, I believe that the article was outdated because technological advancements within the past twenty years have been tremendous. With smartphones, apps, and improvements in software, new GIS applications have been introduced; resulting in a larger group of people becoming more involved with GIS. It would be interesting to compare how Wright’s subsets’ define GIS to how current people conceptualize GIS.

-MTM

Goodchild (2010) provides an overview on geographic information science (GIScience) and its development as a discipline in the past twenty years (1990-2010). He then opens up discourse on how GIScience can be improved and applied in the future. What I was most interested in was not necessarily GIScience’s accomplishments as a discipline, but rather how its theorizing elements can be applied and improved for the future, especially with technology constantly changing. For instance, Goodchild questions how GIScience will handle large quantities of data that are being produced from new devices. He additionally questions how security will be managed. I admire Goodchild’s ability to raise unanswered questions because it shows that there are still many issues in GIS that need to be addressed. His discourse on the “role of the citizen” also spiked my interest because I would like to research how local people in underdeveloped countries/cities can contribute data (13-14).

What I think is unique about modern GIScience is its ability to mix with other disciplines (i.e. “geography, computer science, or information science”); however, contrary to what Goodchild states, I believe it is this reason that GIScience is not “well-defined” (16). Since it crosses over many disciplinary boundaries it is hard to establish itself as its own entity. I do not doubt the importance of GIScience, but it is still not that well known because, in my own opinion, spatial awareness is not a distinct enough feature to separate itself from other disciplines. It is especially hard to maintain a solid definition of GIScience because of how much it is evolving with technological advancements. For these reasons, I see GIScience being complementary to other larger disciplinary fields (just like how GIS tool applications can be used to help support research).

-MTM

Wright et al. (1997) compound the debate amongst the GIS-L community as to whether GIS should be regarded as a tool or as a science.  In doing so Wright et al. also delve into profounder topics such as defining “doing science”.  Wright et al. identify three positions, on a sliding spectrum between tool and science: GIS as a tool, GIS as a toolmaking, and, GIS as a science.

My experience with GIS thus far is to utilize it as a tool for answering geography related questions; nevertheless, I fully understand and accept the view of GIS as a science when looking at research within the field.  Encountering this dichotomy in my everyday suggests the importance of how GIS is used on a case-by-case basis.  While Wright et al. do address this; I believe it was underemphasized in the article (and similarly the debate) as this is essentially the basis for the argument for a necessary shift from the “black-and-white” to a “fuzzier continua” of descriptions for conceptualizing GIS (1997: 358).

Secondly, this article brought to my attention the merit of regarding something as a science simply as a means of maintaining “academic legitimacy” (1997: 354).  Not all usages of GIS will be regarded as science, however this should not devalue it as a discipline.  I think this dilemma as presented to us by Wright et al. is extremely important to defy and not only in the fields of geography and GIS.  The idea that something is automatically more reputable because we somewhat arbitrarily categorize it under “doing science” means we are likely limiting our advancements as a society and I applaud Wright et al. for raising this issue.

-BannerGrey