Daniel Montello’s article (2009) provides a brief summary on cognitive research and its development within GIScience. Similar to what we discussed in our Indigenous Mapping seminar about GPS’s implications on way-finding, Montello argues that technology alters “how we think” by “reducing our ability to reason effectively without technology” (1835). Reflecting on my days in GEOG 201, I certainly can agree with this statement; I found students, including myself, were memorizing ArcMap’s tools at times instead of spatially understanding what certain tools do.
In another case, navigation systems within cell phones are shifting humans’ conceptions of space. Although our mobile phones are useful navigational tools and sensors, I also believe that it is important to maintain a strong cognitive map, or at least some basic spatial knowledge (e.g. the ability to know which direction one is moving). As for concerns over “‘infantilizing’” within my own topic, VGI scientists need to develop models that users can spatially understand (1835). Specifically, models that are visualized in a way that allows users to easily input their own geographic information (e.g. providing a user-friendly interface). However, VGI scientists are solving users’ lack of spatial knowledge through automatic algorithms as well (e.g. crowdsourcing user-generated data through coded filters). This means, VGI scientists are maintaining and standardizing people’s conceptions of space prior to input, and then solving “infantilizing” issues through refining data post-input.
This tug-of-war between the benefits of technology versus benefits of a strong individual cognitive map will persist because GIScientists are at a crossroads. Like Montello states, one of the most difficult obstacles for cognitive GIScientists, as well as other GIScientists, will be “to clarify its values in the design and use of geographic information technologies” (1836). As such, where do ethics come in? Is it more important for people to understand new ways of conceptualizing space (i.e. ‘infantilizing’), or is it more important for people to maintain old ways of conceptualizing space? How can we improve both at the same time? Furthermore, how can we consider different ways of conceptualizing space other than the Western centric model?
-MTM