Computers, Society, and Nature

When reading the Wright article that outlines the debate on whether GIS should be considered a science or a tool there were some very interesting points raised. The article made me think for the very first time about the significance of the definition of GIS and what it is categorized as. I had never stopped to think that the difference between the words ‘science’ and ‘system’ could be such a debate. Additionally, this seemingly unimportant word choice has a huge impact on possible grant money, tenure, and overall legitimacy in the education and scientific community. Whilst reading the article I couldn’t help but begin to wonder where I fell on the ‘fuzzy spectrum’ of GIS classification. As a undergraduate student at McGill I found myself most drawn to the argument of GIS as a tool; as this description of GIS was one I could recognize. However, I began to wonder how my position and current status as a geography undergraduate student affected how I viewed GIS. For me, GIS was always a set of equations and methods used on a set of data to store, process, and analyze it. Furthermore, one could use these results to make some rather visually stimulating maps for projects. However, reading further into the article I realized – perhaps an individual’s positionality affects how they use and thus define GIS. For a software developer such as ESRI, GIS is perhaps seen more as the second position of GIS (as toolmaking) because they focus mostly on the coding and design of the computer program. For professors or other academics, GIS may be a science as they use core concepts (usually integrated into the software) to explore hypotheses/research. Therefore, the categorization of GIS would differ based on the person doing the categorizing.

The article – while excellent at provoking a stream of thought in my mind – was also somewhat confusing in certain parts. I found that there was a general lacking in of a clear definition of GIS. In each of the three ‘positions’ one can take on GIS, I found that Wright picked elements to his liking and molded the definition of GIS to properly fit that viewpoint while completely ignoring other key elements of the ‘system’. This brings me to my next point of contention: that Wright mentioned in the introduction that the ‘s’ in the GIS stands for ‘system’ rather than ‘science’. Unfortunately, Wright never thought to indicate to the reader what he means by Geographic Information System, how it differs from ‘science’, and how it connects to the debate. Finally, I thought that the discussion on what it means to do ‘science’ was somewhat vague, as no concrete definition of science was ever described. This part of the article felt very heavily based on philosophy (concerning the ‘isms’) and didn’t feel like it was doing what it was supposed to – which was to describe what science is.

Overall I liked the article, it made me think about what I study and how it is viewed by other people. Being as I am I figured: I’ll study what I like and not worry about what other people think – now I am not so sure. It also made me think about how I will describe what I study to my friends and family, do I focus more on the scientific aspects of GIS, the toolmaking, or the tool itself? At any rate, I think this seemingly circular argument of the word ‘science’ over ‘system’ all boils down to semantics should be left to the linguists for now.

Until next time,

Nod

Did GIS ultimately gain wide acceptance and legitimacy because of, rather than in spite of its use as a tool?

“My intent was to capture those aspects of GIS research … that could drive a science that would eventually earn the respect of the academy – that would lead, for example, to election of GIS researchers to the US National Academy of Sciences or the UK’s Royal Society (the field has been successful on both counts), or to the establishment of professorships in GIS in the most prestigious insitutions (sic).” (p. 2).

“The concept of GIScience seems to have been adopted enthusiastically.” (p. 2).

“After 15 years there seems every reason to believe that GIScience is a genuine, challenging, and fruitful area for scientific research with its own unique scientific questions and discoveries.” (p. 2).

I would still question whether this condition could ever have materialized without the expanded use and application of GIS as a tool, particularly with the impact of the Internet and the Web, and therefore perhaps much of the adoption of GIScience relates less to the unique scientific questions and discoveries of GIS and more to the niche that GIS fills primarily as a tool and methodology. I see this reflected even in Goodchild’s concluding topics: Integration of processes, use by nonexperts and citizens, and application to non-geographic spaces. Each of these to me speaks to the expansion and development of GIS as a tool rather than a distinct scientific discipline. I would also ask whether fruitful and challenging epistemological questions regarding GIS as a tool remain under-emphasized in this quest for greater respect and the associated resources as a science.
Mabu

“The ‘tool versus science’ debate has received little mention in the published literature of geography “ (p. 348), despite the attention given to GIS. A non-issue for most practicioners and researchers? Wouldn’t it fall within the scope of any ongoing debate on epistemology and methodology (philosophy of science) that researchers and the scientific community must bring to bear on any chosen method? Shall we assign the term “science” to any methodology, or is the methodology itself one component, albeit an important one, of scientific inquiry? Would a more fruitful framing of the debate involve the appropriate application of GIS-as-a-tool to the type of research in question, again, as with any chosen method? I guess I’m confused about the nature of the debate, and whether there really is much of a debate here beyond a handful of researchers beating their fists on an open door. (In a time of viral online phenomena and 1000s of hits instantaneously, the description of 64 comments among 40 people over 34 days as an intense discussion seems quaint and severely overstated.) The authors of the article appear to have their hat in the ring on the GIS-as-science end of the spectrum. I can see that the design of GIS, as with any research instrument, can be approached scientifically and empirically, but I am not aware of a theory of GIS (I readily acknowledge my ignorance here!). I tend to agree that geography or other disciplines are the science, GIS the tool.
I agree with Wright’s comment that “GIS encompasses the way in which geographical info. is collected, perceived, managed, and used” (p. 351), but this point would apply to any scientific methodology and not cause us to redefine the methodology as a science. My sense is that doing GIS is part of doing science, but not a science unto itself. The point of Goodchild (1994) that GIS can be applied to the spectrum of scientific approaches including positivist and nonpositivist approaches to me supports the view that GIS is more appropriately understood as a tool rather than a science.
Is the question driven by a now-outdated concern that because GIS labs, courses, and GIS-based research require significant investments of resources, that such investments would be more likely if given status of science unto itself? And perhaps even a desire for greater legitimacy? It seems now that the wide acceptance of GIS as a tool has helped address both these concerns. The Goodchild update “Fifteen years on” may provide some insight.
Mabu

“An Account of the Origins of Conceptual Models of Geographic Space” – Oleg McNoleg (1996)

A humorous writer under the pen name, Oleg McNoleg (of Noplace, USA), provides an amusing pseudo-history of the origin of geographic space. According to the author, the pigcells and poly-gone conceptions of space laid the groundwork for the pixel and polygon. The imaginary Tessellati and Vectules pay homage to the tessellation-like, uniformly-shaped cells of raster data and the “freeform spatial unit” of vector data (2). This narrative illustrates how raster and vector data types emerged through different needs and subsequently fulfill different spatial requirements. I am unfamiliar with the actual origins of the pixel and the polygon but I imagine they were not conceived under the same research conditions.

This may be stretching the allegorical meaning of this parody, but perhaps the narrative’s absurdity is meant to draw attention to the weird ways in which people conceptualize, use, and are dependent on space. McNoleg mentions that the Vectules’ ‘poly-gone’ industry made it “possible to sell somebody absolutely nothing and get away with it” (2). We now live in an age where mapping technologies are sold for millions or even billions of dollars e.g. Apple’s acquisition of Embark and Google’s purchase of Waze.

On a side note, I believe this article may set a record for oddest list of keywords.

– BCBD

“Geographical information science” – Michael F. Goodchild (1992)

Written in 1992, Michael F. Goodchild’s paper, “Geographical information science” is an intriguing time capsule of how one GIS researcher characterized the discipline. Now—some 22 years later—we are in an exciting position to assess how much GIS has evolved. Unfortunately, we still “tend to treat our GIS displays as if they were virtual sheets of paper,” however, I am happy to report that technologies such as Google Earth have improved the representation of the spheroid (33). Global-scale applications such as Google Earth & Maps and open-source projects such as Open Street Maps must have been unfathomable to researcher in 1992. Additionally, three-dimensional graphics are improving steadily and filling out the z-axis, previously limited by aerial stereoscopy and elevation isolines. Three-dimensional projections are even finding their place in the abovementioned Internet applications and are being incorporated in public platforms such as YouSayCity. In “Geographical Information Science Fifteen Years Later,” Goodchild acknowledges that he completely underestimated “the impact of the Internet” (2007).

The accessibility of technology is another major way breakthrough that flew under Goodchild’s radar. Goodchild, circa 1992, mentions that a “digital field geology notebook” could be a possible future technology for research (35). Goodchild believed such a technology would be niche product for academics and industry. The capability and proliferation of smart phones was an unimaginable event that would change the ways through which people utilize geographic information. I believe Goodchild would stand by naming Google Maps the “Killer App of the 21^st Century.”

On the topic of accessibility, it is interesting to point out that Goodchild addressed the ethical issue of GIS’ relationship with society. In particular he questions whether GIS will empower those already with power or if it will be used to redistribute power to those without it. It surprises me that GIS researchers were already considering this issue in 1992. I wonder what Goodchild thinks of the emergence of grassroots mapping projects.

– BCBD

“Geographical Information Science Fifteen Years Later” – Michael. F. Goodchild (2007)

Michael F. Goodchild is a staunch believer in GIS as a science. He notes how GIS researchers have been elected to the US National Academy of Sciences and the UK Royal Society, and GIS has proliferated within academic institutions. Additionally, as with other sciences, GIS is characterized by research subdivisions. Goodchild’s analysis of the state of GIS seems sound, however, I am left with the question of what his ontological quest is aiming to achieve. What is to be gained by being labelled a science and what could be lost?

Goodchild’s campaign to validate GIS as a science may have undesirable consequences. Entrenching GIS’s place in the rigid, evidence-based confines of science may cement the multifaceted “S”, which may have an exclusionary effect on the diverse GIS community. GIS researchers that exist beyond the realm of academic science are most at risk of exclusion. The way I see it, GIS could lose its creativity, flexibility, and uniqueness if the focus on scientific endeavour becomes all encompassing.