I bring this up in many of the blog posts that I write, but it truly amazes me how much I learn about the inner workings of GIScience every week in this class. During his talk on critical GIS for GIS day, Dr. Wilson mentioned how too often critical GIS is a lecture tacked on to the end of a GIS course, which truly was my experience taking GIS courses at another university, where limited background was provided and methods and applications were favoured. This phenomenon is reflected in the content analysis of GIScience journals provided in Schuurman (2006), which explains that only 49 of 762 published between 1995 and 2004 fell under the category ‘GIS and society’. Firstly, I find the shift/difference in nomenclature from GIS and society to critical GIS interesting, because critical GIS has negative connotations to me, implying a necessarily flawed use or understanding of GIS which needs to be critiqued; whereas ‘GIS and society’ is a neutral description of the scope and intention of the study. Secondly, I don’t find this discrepancy in number surprising, as ‘GIS and society’ isn’t the main focus of GIS research by any means, but I wonder, how can we, as GIS users/researchers make the distinction between ‘GIS and society’, when GIS studies necessarily implicate society, either because of the subject matter or by means of the study implications. To me, GIS is most often just as social as it is spatial (my own project in the high Arctic being as close to an example to the contrary that I can think of-but only because it takes place in one of the most remote places on this planet)- and I think it is highly problematic to ignore these important discussions and focus on the things that get the big funding and flashy publications.