Computers, Society, and Nature

Goodchild (2010) provided an interesting summary of the innovations in GIScience since its first conception. I appreciate the discussion of what innovation looks like in a field that is so intensely interdisciplinary. I feel that Sara Fabrikant’s interpretation of “discoveries” in GIScience as “enabling the discovery of the world” also appropriately captures the interdisciplinary nature of GIScience research implications.

In the 7 years science the article was published, I wonder how successful we’ve been in addressing Goodchild’s fifth challenge of the decade: the challenge of education. He writes that in the first twenty years since the conception of GIScience there has been a transition in the approach to education toward GIScience literacy in the general public. Still, most of my technical GIS education has been with software otherwise locked behind costly licenses or affiliation with wealth institutions. I’d imagine this approach serves to reinforce a knowledge gap between those with access and those without.

Perhaps it’s because of a lack of suitable alternatives, and I can’t speak to the experience of students at other universities, but I think it’s at least indicative of some vestige of educating a professional elite in GIS education. Of course, universities have some duty to endow students with employable skills. I suppose another challenge in GIScience will be to provide students with a knowledge of industry standards without perpetuating a culture differentiated expertise based on resources.

In the paper “core concepts of spatial information for transdisciplinary research”, Kuhn(2012) demonstrates the importance of spatial information across disciplines and proposes ten core concepts for non-specialists to understand it. When reading it, we should question about whether Geographic Information Sciences (GIS) have to be transdisciplinary, and whether these ten core concepts are helpful for those kinds of research.

According to Kuhn(2012), spatial notions are the basis of transdisciplinary approaches. The example of the Amazon deforestation proves his statements which I agree with. In other words, we can regard spatial information as integrators to connect different disciplines. However, I would doubt that the ten core concepts are useful enough for people outside of GIS.

Non-specialists need to understand and apply these concepts in their practices. Therefore, the chosen concepts should appropriate for their use. Hence, I’m interested in the objects of the survey conducted by the author. Whom or what projects it refers to? What disciplines are involved? Does the information mainly provided by GIS-related practitioners or researchers? Answering these questions may help us know how useful the concepts could be for non-specialists. Besides, some of the descriptions of concepts are straightforward enough, while some are confused. For non-specialists, the isolate description of “field”, “object”, “meaning” or “value” is not able to make them well-understood. For example, “neighborhood” can be thought as a region, “field” also. “Field” can answer what is here, “object” also. “Meaning” and “value” sometimes may refer to the same thing. Non-specialists still have few concept of these “core concepts”. Unless, there is more discussion about the relationships among core concepts, the situation may be improved. That said, it is necessary to organize these core concepts so that they can be understood accurately. In conclusion, Kuhn notes that core concepts should be formalized into an ontology when use, but it remains to be asked whether we can have them more structured in ahead of the practice.

Initially I had some trouble appreciating the importance of the debate summarized by Wright et al. (1997). The discussants bring up some interesting points about the nature of science, but I’m curious about how productive the conversation can be beyond the need for some scientists to act as gatekeepers. Particularly in the sense that the science/non-science dichotomy, as noted by the authors, “presumes the superiority of one or another approaches to generate knowledge.” I was reminded of how similar discourse in the field of environmental science has been used to delegitimize traditional ecological knowledges–”similar” in how the discussants try to incorporate the concept of GIS into their own understanding of science, not necessarily in the context or implications of the discussion. I’m not so sure that science lends itself to such unambiguous ingroup/outgroup designations. I can, however, appreciate the very real challenge of securing research funding and by extension the need for asserting academic legitimacy.

I think how some discussants so boldly assert their opinions really demonstrates how strongly our ideas are shaped by our world view. For example, the argument that GIS is analogous to math and statistics and therefore not science is less compelling without the assumption that math is not a science. I was eager to see the authors draw the comparison between GIScience and computer science, which arose with the development of digital computing, a powerful tool for processing information. I imagine now few would question its place as a shining example of STEM-hood.

I found Goodchild’s argument refreshing, as it encompassed all the issues that I felt were present (but relatively left unsaid) during my time learning how to use GIS software. His discussion of the achievements of GIScientists (like Tobler’s First Law (“nearby things are more similar than distant things”) and Anselin’s spatial heterogeneity) really helped me to better understand the difference between GISoftware (tool) and GIScience. It became clearer to me that GIScience is its own domain, which helps it find applications in both theoretical and technical fields, including but not limited to computer science, economics, politics, and marketing/business.

He also acknowledged what I have found worrying about geography academia– the tendency of scholars to look solely to academia to bolster their argument.  In my experience, the papers that look solely to academia to make their claims papers end up rehashing the same arguments, not offering any new or terribly groundbreaking ideas. It is one thing to refute arguments and conduct new hands-on research into phenomena, but many that I have experienced as a liberal-arts undergraduate student rephrase and slightly elaborate on claims that have already been made, which Goodchild calls “problematic”.

Finally, Goodchild’s observations on the “future of GIScience” are very well thought out and many of his questions remain unanswered today. I was particularly interested in his discussion of user-volunteered data, particularly about the social strata of data volunteers as well as their motivations to collect and provide this data. I am particularly interested in participatory planning practices, and today, many of the ways of collecting public input involves some iteration of online surveys. Many towns– including my small (and fairly technologically challenged) hometown– conduct surveys which take longer than 30 minutes, requiring users to place points on online maps or drawing lines on online maps to show commonly taken routes, for example, in order to plan for a better use of space. Goodchild asks: who is actually volunteering this data, and why? I think some question that also need to be asked are: Who is not volunteering this data, and why? Does the lack of technology or time or interest (or, more likely, a combination of the three) dissuade everyone from volunteering this information? And how could those who do not volunteer this information (the elderly or others who do not own personal computers, people who work over 40 hours per week) provide this information in another way? Even 7 years after the publication of this reflective article, information about data volunteers is rarely studied (though sometimes in these surveys, this data is collected/volunteered) and therefore efforts to be more encompassing are often in name only.

I found the overall article creates more complexity than simplifying the proposed concepts. If the target of the article is to communicate the opportunity of interdisciplinary integration, I find the language used to express Geospatial Information’s primitives (and cores) too complex if not supported by pragmatic and clear examples.

In reading the article I question why the metadata concept is not part of the core discussion given the fundamental roles it plays in information and moreover in the geospatial domain. This concept could have been elaborated in the accuracy section.

The author provides an unequivocal interpretation of the core components in Geospatial Information. That said, he also let me think that in a society driven by a strong economical drive, measuring the economic value of Geospatial Information is complex and difficult to estimate.  So how can we estimate its impact on the budget planning of a project based activity?

This gap suggests me that the Geospatial Information could remain in the ‘Nice to have’ basket when planning project’s resource investment (which the primary focus in not Geospatial Information).

Lastly, because things change constantly, I am still debating where the concept of time sits in the Geospatial Information realm. Is it a core element or should it be considered an external factor?

– Giancarlo –

In reading the article I found that in the definition of UCGIS may lack a fundamental “application” element in its definition. Stating the objectives of the Geographical Information Science (GI Science) as “the transformation of geographic data into useful information…” I think denotes rather a weak goal that is not necessarily ethical. This weakness may generate the ambiguity of where this science should find a proper location in the scientific discussion.
The article conveys to me the benefits to the societal realm (not limited to the societal construct); therefore, that “positive net element” should be clearly stated in any definition.
Is the goal of GI Science to answer fundamental scientific questions? I am not convinced; I believe GI Science plays a critical role to link scientific methods to the application of technology, which eventually must deliver a net benefit to society.
The above characteristics create a new concept which is nor represented by the traditional Geoscience disciplines (Geology, Geophysics) nor implicitly disclosed by the Geographic disciplines.
The problem is that recycling existing words or using old concept (like GIS), and forcing the community to distance itself from it doesn’t help and eventually, as expressed in the article, creates ambiguity and confusion.
So are we stuck with a definition that eventually could trigger loss of opportunity and risky outcomes like the inevitable repercussion in recruiting investments, critical to the survivability of this scientific approach?
Should we redesign a name that unequivocally represents the scientific effort into the Geo Information domain?

– Giancarlo –

This article was a great kick-off to our course, as it highlighted just how far we’ve come — and the advances we can make — by discussing GIS as GIScience.

Since 1997, the number of GIS users alone has grown exponentially due to the increasing use of location-based services thanks to smartphones and the widespread use of the internet worldwide. GIS users are no longer required to have formal training to use software, and the average person can contribute data about locations, contributing to the success of platforms such as OpenStreetMaps, Waze, GasBuddy, and many others.

Also, because of the incredible advancements in technology and GIS more specifically in the last 20 years, there should be a new review of those who think about the science of GIS. It seems to me, anyways, that most GIS users are just that- users (ie. tool users and toolmakers, by Wright et al’s definition). It would be interesting to see if the new users of GIS, like computer scientists, entrepreneurs, planners, surveillance technicians, volunteer cartographers, or even everyday people, evaluate GIS as a science, and if so, how they define science or how they define GIScience according to their experiences.

And, does GIS need to be defined as a science today? Many people who use GISystems are using a variety of platforms and creating a variety of platforms that rely on the tool to answer questions (à la the Scientific Method). The creation of these platforms shows that there is recognition of the GIS (tool) as a tool in the toolbox of researchers and scientists and less than simply the investigation of irregularities/trends in spatial data. I will be interested in learning more about why the definition of “science” is important, since it seems like today, most do not concern themselves with such nuanced definitions. 

Let me start off by saying that I’m happy that Wright et al. (1997) acknowledge that GIS can have many different identities. GIS can be different things to different people – it can be used to answer research questions or fuel new ones. I was introduced to GIS as a tool, and initially saw it as a mechanism which allowed me to investigate spatial data and produce maps to show my findings. As I am now delving further into GIS, I am realizing that it is important to interrogate GIS as a means of producing knowledge and look into any errors or biases that GIS itself introduces. I don’t really know if this qualifies GIS as a “science”, but to me, this type of investigation goes beyond considering GIS as merely a tool.

I appreciated that Wright et al. (1997) discussed the various philosophical approaches underpinning science. It’s important to talk about the pedestal that we often put science on and the types of knowledge that it values. In the context of GIS, I think that the label of “science” is problematic in that it, while perhaps elevating the field, inevitably becomes exclusionary to those outside of academia or other similar positions of privilege. I’m not convinced by that author’s rationalization of why being able to call GIS a science is important. If we’re fighting to call GIS a science to give it academic legitimacy, isn’t this just giving in to the skewed status quo? Furthermore, I’m not clear on where this meta discussion of what GIS “is” actually gets us. Nothing is stopping anyone from talking about or using GIS in different ways. Why do we need to put so much effort into rigorously defining its many identities? Aren’t there more pressing problems which need solving?

World peace, Vancouver’s astronomical housing prices, Donald Trump…???

• janejacobs