Computers, Society, and Nature

Doing Participation on the Geospatial Web

It is widely understood that the geospatial capabilities of Web 2.0 have reinvented the way people interact with the physical world. With user-generated input, Web 2.0 has transformed the way people choose where to shop, eat, and socialize through apps such as Yelp, Urbanspoon, and FourSquare. The authors of this article are curious about how the proliferation of place-based digital platforms will affect the domain of public participation, including civic engagement, public involvement, and volunteered geographic information i.e. the participatory Geoweb (PGeoweb).

The PGeoweb can improve public participation in many ways. These include increasing the number of participants, enhancing communication and record keeping, and connect individuals and groups in alignments that could not otherwise be forged. Central to these advancements in public participation vis-à-vis the PGeoweb is the role of anonymity. The authors mention the activity of women on social media during the Arab Spring as a primary example of how the anonymity of Web 2.0 technologies can be incorporated into public participation. Following this example, the PGeoweb could provide a layer of personal security so as to reveal and project the opinions of marginalized people. In some circumstances, virtual involvement may be the “superior participatory medium” (27).

Throughout the article, anonymity is largely portrayed as a positive development. The most oppositional comment made about anonymity is that it hinders the establishment of trust within a digital community. I believe that trust may be just the tip of the iceberg with respect to anonymity. How can one be accountable for one’s virtual actions? Anonymity also removes the human dimension from discourse. By reducing opposing views to profile names, I worry that people may be driven apart by online participation, particularly in cases of political tension. Hate becomes a mechanical procedure when there isn’t a human face looking back at you. While the PGeoweb has a lot to offer public participation, there are many more factors to consider before we celebrate.

– BCBD

With the evolution of the Geoweb, or rather Web 2.0, different forms of participation from citizens have arisen, some vastly different from traditional methods. The definition of participation was vague to begin with, but with the advancements of the geoweb, this definition has become even more abstract. It allows for a much larger audience to be heard, but is this really the step that we want to take? I can see the argument from both sides. On one hand, giving so many people access to some form of media, or dataset, which allows them to participate and share their own data on the web results in more data that has ever been available. You would think that this should be a good thing, and that anything suspicious, or simply incorrect wouldn’t survive the criticism of the rest of the geoweb, however in most cases, this simply does not happen. Many non-experts allow such information to propagate under the false pretenses that they are in fact experts. This is where such access can be dangerous. If anybody has the ability to simply “participate”, they can influence others into seeing their view, story or data set in a sculpted viewpoint. Inadvertent or not, the geoweb allows anybody with the access to internet, and a medium such as social media to have a large effect on what kind of data propagates through the geoweb.
This kind of participation is unavoidable in the era that we live in, however traditional methods of participation should not be neglected as one would think that they would be more credible than any random self proclaimed “Joe” contributing via Facebook.
Buzz

This paper dealt with the nature of the Participatory Geoweb (PGeoweb) and its consequences on public participation. What I found thought-provoking in this article is how the authors examined the ways in which the PGeoweb can affect citizen-government interactions. It is noted that there was a “heterogenization of the role of the state as a convener”. This change of roles is interesting since traditionally the state holds the balance of power over its citizens. With the PGeoweb, having the ability for citizens to act as convener would shift some this balance of power away from the state. The authors do warn, however, of the government “checking the boxes” and not having two-way dialogue during participation. If that could be fixed, a more efficient ‘participation’ between citizen and state would be permitted.

In a similar vein to that above, the blurring of the lines between expert and non-expert is an important idea to elaborate upon. This change in traditional roles could be beneficial for less advantaged groups if the ability for them to have a more active role in participation is enabled. For example, local populations can utilize the PGeoweb for projects (ex. mapping territory or resources) from within the community, without the influence of other actors who might have conflicting interests (ex. mining companies). While the differences between experts and non-experts becomes muddled, the information provided must remain credible in order for the non-experts’ information to remain a growing part of the scientific community.

-Benny

This article discusses the influence of participation in online GIS (PGeoweb specifically) and how it can influence policy. My interest in the article stemmed from the author’s mention of how PGeoweb potential could be ‘oversold’ in regards to social change. The author seemed to phrase the argument in a way that made it seem as if people were under the impression that in order to ‘participate’ (a term not concretely defined in the article, which is ok – I find semantic arguments boring and pointless in papers) they simply had to add to the gathered information on the given platform. In other words, if they were helping add information to the Geoweb, they were doing their part in affecting social change. This is of course is false pretence, as the author so aptly points out. This got me thinking about those pesky little online petitions that are floating around my Facebook newsfeed. Of course I’m going to sense immediate gratification if I sign this petition to save those cute little polar bears – but is it really helping? In my interpretation of the article, the author was saying how distancing ourselves from the problem (i.e. through online participation) it was effectively downsizing our impact on social change. In other words, if I actually went to a forum or volunteered my time for those polar bears, wouldn’t that be more effective than me signing an online petition or adding a photo to an already immense database of information? Similarly, the author points out how some of the aesthetics of the Geoweb have an authoritative appearance which “could imply more importance to an individual’s contribution than is accurate”. This again, leads individuals into thinking they’ve done their part in social change when in fact they’ve really done nothing. It’s essentially the same gratification we get from harvesting crops in Farmville.

Oh the woes of the internet.

Until next time,

Nod

The emergence of the internet, as described in the Goodchild (2005) article, has been huge for GIS, if not only because we now have a handy description of what we do: “you know Google Maps? I do something like that”.

Online mapping applications, such as Google Maps, have democratized the use of GIS. However, this does not mean that “powerful and complex technologies” can be used by everyone. Much like access to photo editing software does not make a photographer, easy access to GIS does not make everyone a geographer. Nevertheless, anyone who so wishes now has the possibility of understanding and visualizing geographical processes. If this can inspire a “child of ten” to pursue a career in geography, it would only be an added benefit.

The use of online GIS adds a third form to Goodchild’s description that “GIScience might take two essentially distinct forms: research about GIS that would lead eventually to improvement in the technology; and research with GIS that would exploit the technology in the advancement of science” (2).  One can also use a GIS without understanding the technology or the science.

Finally, the popularity of Google Maps gives the uninformed a new appreciation for geography, and perhaps one fewer geographer will be asked “You study geography? So what’s the capital of X?”.

-IMC

Is GIS a science? While the question appears fairly benign it seems the implications of the answer are significant.
One aspect of this debate I find most interesting to me is that I had not ever considered GIS to be a science before reading this article. I remain skeptical to be sure. In my first semester of university I took the class Intro to GIS which for the most part taught students how to use the GIS as a tool. Theoretical knowledge was provided but in my opinion the main emphasis – and the most interesting parts – were the labs where we used applied GIS to real-world issues. While more advanced GIS courses go more into depth regarding the processes, tools, rules, and theories that allow GIS to be a useful I have always found the most important part of these courses to be the labs. To me this suggests that while it is important for us to understand how GIS works, it is more important for us to be able to operate a GIS.
On the other hand, GIS is a tool available to scientists to help them increase their knowledge of the world around them. If GIS helps scientists in the search for truths then why should it be denied the designation as a proper science?
I still remain skeptical about this issue, in my gut I feel that GIS is a tool. The scientific aspects of GIS seem, to me at least, to be provided by computer science, mathematics, geography, remote sensing, and other disciplines.

GoOutside

I had honestly never given this debate much thought. Having done a few introductory classes in GIS, the extent of my knowledge focuses on the how to. I suppose, without thinking too much about it, I have always perceived GIS as a tool that enables scientists to better deal with their data, and to perform analyses across space. This paper, like all the others made me think differently about my prior knowledge. I suppose I don’t have a strong opinion either way, but rather only had the one perception of GIS. For that reason, I think I could be swayed in either direction, given enough evidence to support the claim.

I think the idea of a continuum makes the most sense. Based on arguments from both sides, it seems that GIS can’t definitely be characterized as absolutely either. One argument for the science side was that you can’t do GIS without knowing about the rules that govern the creation of spatial modelling. It is true that this is something that is extremely important when attempting to use GIS, and yet it is something that I suppose I have taken for granted and overlooked. Additionally, when using Robinson et al. (1984) definition of science -“A logical and systematic approach to problems that seeks generalizable answers”- it only makes sense to consider GIS as a science, as it is precisely a systematic approach to the problem at hand.

They mention that GIS as a science gives it academic legitimacy. I don’t think that it needs to be called a science to be considered legitimate. Even as a tool, it is such a useful piece of equipment that allows for a much larger potential of your data set, across so many disciplines. I definitely believe that at any point along the continuum, the role of GIS in academia is validated.

In closing, I believe that GIS can be seen as anything along the tool-science continuum. Depending on the application, it could be used simply as a tool, or for a more sophisticated use in trying to advance a scientific question. I don’t think that there is a correct answer to this debate, but rather it is all about how you are using GIS for your own data.

Buzz

GIS: Tool or Science? Demystifying the Persistent Ambiguity of GIS as “Tool” versus “Science” – Wright, Goodchild, and Proctor (1997)

Wright, Goodchild and Proctor seem hung up on the status of GIS as a tool, tool-making practice, or science. To them, defining GIS is a necessity so as to improve its instruction and direction within academia. In this article they seek to answer whether it should be taught as a tool to undergraduates or as a research pursuit for graduates. In their observation, which seemingly undermines their pedagogic objective, the authors pose this question to the GIS community via an open, online forum.

At first glance I was caught up by the rigour of this method. How could this be considered legitimate? How could any meaningful insight be derived from such an informal setting? Was this in any way a scientific method to determine the existence of a science?

After reflecting on the fact that the majority of GIS users are not academic researchers, I realized that this might be an ideal question for a wide-cast, industry-based audience. Perhaps the answer should be openly sourced in this manner. ‘Open’ should not be a four-letter word when it comes to data sourcing. As we learned last class, open source data projects such as Open Street Maps have a similar accuracy to pervasive applications such as Google Maps. Furthermore, certain areas such as Mogadishu, Somalia—areas which have little commercial value to corporations e.g. Google—are more accurately portrayed on open source, collaborative platforms. What would be a better audience to ask such a question than GIS users themselves?

There are so many dimensions to analzye when considering whether or not GIS is a science. In this article Wright, Goodchild and Proctor not only recognize but also address the issue of academic esotericism. Instead of limiting the discourse to academic circles, the trio brings the discussion to all GIS users by putting it online. Going beyond the bounds of the university, the online forum also addresses the subject of biases in academia. For instance, the Faculty of Science hosts the Department of Geography, therefore, it is in the best interest of GIS researchers to frame GIS as a science.

Although I have not drawn my own conclusion as to whether or not GIS is a science as a consequence of this article, I have however become increasingly interested in the validity of openly source opinions, information, and data.

– BCBD

The multiple interpretations of the “S” in GIS capture the various uses, methodological challenges, opportunities and implications of Geographic Information. Research about and with GIS – GIS the science and GIS the tool – have gained significant momentum and importance since Goodchild’s keynote address at the Fourth International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling in the early 1990s. An important aspect of the evolution of GIS is the increased public access to GIS. While only alluded to in the article, the increased availability and accessibility of these technologies to ‘plugged-in’ individuals will drive continued innovation in the field and will have unclear ethical, social, political and economic ramifications. What are the privacy and security implications of widespread and readily available geographic information? How will open source data and technologies affect the competitiveness and relevance of closed data and technologies? These questions will need to be tackled by exploring all aspects of GIS – the System, the Science, the Studies, the Services – as they all contribute to a better identification and understanding of the technologies of GIS and the objectives and methodological underpinnings of the field. More research and attention needs to be focused on such issues to ensure the integrity of GIS the tool and GIS the science.

Fan_G

Goodchild reflects on how far GIS has come in the last 15 years since his first assertion of a science rather than a system. Although I understand his concern, i’m not entirely convinced that we have come as far as he interprets that we have in recognizing the science of GIS. In 1992, he used the analogy to describe the data handlers of the GIS world as mere workers for the “United Parcel Service of GIS”. I can easily see why he was frustrated with the notion, as it gives very little credit to the field, or the individual who is operating the program. His description of the perception of GIS in 1992 made it sound like people viewed it as one of those automated robots on the assembly line that required no intelligence but rather a detailed set of commands, that required only a simple program to run. This perception has definitely changed, if it was indeed as extreme as he describes.
Over the 15 years between articles, Goodchild mentions the strides that have been made in viewing GIS as something more substantial than simply a “Parcel Service”. It is actually quite impressive to think of the changes that have been made, and the support that GIS now has since his first conference in 1992. Obviously, the growth of the internet has permitted an accessability to datasets and ideas that would have never been possible in the past, so that could be one of the key cogs in the advancement of the percepetion of GIS. The problem that I see is that although you could argue, as Goodchild does, that it is a science, and that university programs are now recognizing it just as they would any other discipline – it seems like you need those other disciplines to do anything with GIS. Running data for geography, biology, geology, atmospheric science all require knowledge and understanding of those respective fields in order to obtain what you would like with GIS. It may be a complex tool that requires the user to be strong in a particular discipline, however it seems that it is more of a tool than a science.
Goodchild believes that more work needs to be done in order for GIS to be recognized as a science, and I would definitely have to agree. Major changes in the way GIS is used, or the way in which processes are characterized could lead to an improvement in the perception of GIS as a science.

Buzz

The Wright et al (1997) article describes three positions taken from the GIS-L debate, placed on a continuum from tool to science. However, the examples used to prove/disprove that GIS is a science aren’t more obvious than the debate itself. One of the arguments is that if GIS is a science, then so is statistical software. Geography and math would then be the ‘sciences’, which are facilitated by the use of ‘tools’. Yet, another user argues that math and stats aren’t sciences either. If there is no clear consensus on the role of mathematics, how can we expect the GIS debate to ever be resolved?

Moreover, it is unclear to me why we must define a field as a science. The author argues that “[c]learly it does matter whether or not ‘doing GIS’ is ‘doing science,’ if for no other reason than that ‘doing science’ is often regarded as a code-phrase for academic legitimacy” (Wright, 354), but for this I come back to the math argument. I don’t want to be the one to break it to those doing graduate work in the math department that, as they are not always considered to be ‘doing science’, their academic pursuits aren’t legitimate.

Finally, who decides what is or isn’t a science? If we are waiting for the online community to settle this, we might be waiting for a very long time. Before we can embark on the GIS as a science debate, I think it would be wise to get agree on one definition of science.

-IMC

A good portion of Goodchild’s article was based on the ever-present discussion of ‘science’ vs. ‘system’ – what does the ‘s’ in GIS really stand for? As Goodchild put it: “problems of nomenclature will always be with us”. As George Gershwin put it: “Potato, potahto, let’s call the whole thing off”. In this case, I side with Gershwin.

Moving on from this seemingly endless name game,  there were other elements of the article which made me consider the history of GIS and what factors have shaped GIS into what it is (whatever it is) today. The most impactful one (in my humble opinion) would have been the internet. As someone born in the 90s, the impact of internet on a field of study was something I had never considered; the internet has been present in my life since I can remember. The impact of the internet becomes even more clear when looking into how much data I use in a single GIS project (and just how much data exists now – hello big data) the internet must have been a massive breakthrough for GIS, especially for sharing data. Goodchild touches on this by implying that the internet revolutionized both how we use GIS (as a ‘medium’ rather than a ‘butler’) and how we know GIS. For instance, it is mentioned how the general public interacts with GIS software (i.e. the famed Google Maps). Before the internet – no one in the general public would have had a clue what GIS was; even if they knew they probably wouldn’t have cared. Now the use and understanding of GIS is simple and key for anyone and everyone who checks in on Facebook.

All in all, GIS has changed drastically from 1990 to 2005 – and again since then. Not only in technology development but through the introduction of the internet. This has resulted in GIS becoming completely ingrained into our lives. Just consider that next time you turn on Siri and ask her for directions.

Until next time,

Nod

According to Wight and company, GIS can be understood as something along a continuum ranging from tool to science, with three positions being distinguished: GIS is a tool, GIS is toolmaking, GIS as a science.  But what do they mean when they use the term ‘GIS’? By failing to clearly define the term, they create a space for the GIS-L discussants to define the term as a tool, a science or something in between. Can we meaningfully discern which of these categories accurately describe GIS? Do the descriptions presented in the article actually define ‘GIS’, or do they reflect their various levels of experience with and knowledge of ‘GIS’? Those that wanted to define GIS as tool did so by highlighting its technological and practical aspects, while those that wanted to define GIS as a Science, stressed its theoretical and conceptual facets.  Could these be two sides of the same coin?

While the distinction has significant implications for academics, academia and the legitimacy of the field, the very existence of a lively debate highlights the multifaceted and complex nature of a field that is gaining more notice from the academy and academics.

Over 15 since the writing of the article, the debate has tilted in the favor of GIS as a Science – we wouldn’t have this class if it wasn’t the case.

Fan_G