Archive for September, 2015

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Spatializing Social Networks

Monday, September 21st, 2015

The subject of social network analysis is fascinating; however, I found the article by Radil, Flint and Tita (2010) to be somewhat difficult reading. The article was full of jargon, such as “spatializing” “spatialities” “betweenness” “positional analysis” and the authors often needed to translate themselves by writing “in other words…” Nevertheless, the topic and the application of it to rival gangs in Hollenbeck were very interesting. The authors discuss the idea of embeddedness: how social behavior is produced by and inextricably connected to space, and use spatial statistics such as Moran’s I to examine the social networks and splits between gangs. The example of gang territory is an excellent one, because turf and territory have a significant geographical element that manifests itself in gang rivalries and behavior.

While reading the article, I became interested other applications of social network analysis. I found myself thinking, “How could GIS be used to consider the spatial networks of other things more positive than gang territory?” For example, one could explore the spatiality of activist social networks or a network analysis of the use of health centers. Social media use is also a relevant example because it is, of course, social, but it also has an important spatial element. One could use a spatial network analysis to learn how information is distributed through social media across space and time.

This article explores some of the issues and recurring questions of GIScience. For example, the authors struggle to incorporate both space and time in their analysis, as they address that their static model doesn’t address the dynamism of constantly-changing social networks. The authors also address the multi-disciplinary aspect of GIScience, by encouraging that the results they found be strengthened by other ways of knowing from other disciplines.

 

-denasaur

Tags:
Posted in General | Comments Closed

Social Science and GIS

Monday, September 21st, 2015

In the article, Spatializing Social Networks: Using Social Network Analysis to Investigate Geographies of Gang Rivalry, Territoriality, and Violence in Los Angeles, the authors explain how social network theory methods can be applied to GIS in order to render a better contextualization of the territoriality of gang violence in Los Angeles (2010). I found it noteworthy that methodological applications of GIScience using social science analysis have the potential to inform activism against systems of violence and oppression. Pursuing methods to investigate the patterning of social relations through a geographic lens allows geographers the power to compare and devise patterns of violence at other scales and geographies. Therefore, the methods discussed within the paper have the capacity to inform widespread policy dedicated to ending gang violence on a large scale.

The application of social network theory methods to GIS reminds me that “doing GIS” is in fact a representation and assertion of social regulation and power. I suspect that my lack of knowledge about social network theory and structural equivalence limited the impact of the article’s insights for me. However, I do know that space as a social construction, rather than merely informing social process, is an important assertion and fundamental to critical GIS. The paper’s examination of gang violence in L.A. underscores that critical GIS plays an important role within the discipline of GIScience. Hopefully, future GIScience research will embrace critical GIS in order to more accurately understand how spatial social networks result in material geographic realities.

-GeoBloggerRB

Posted in 506 | Comments Closed

Contemporary Social Media Implications of Embeddedness (spatial social networks)

Monday, September 21st, 2015

In his article “Spatializing Social Networks: Using Social Network Analysis to Investigate Geographies of Gang Rivalry, Territoriality, and Violence in Los Angeles”, Steven Radil uses the idea of embeddedness—or the idea that there are “structural constraint[s] on social action” (Radil 309)—to describe the occurrence of gang-related violence in the Hollenbeck Policing Area of Los Angeles. Although urban geographers have long been attentive to natural barriers (e.g.: rivers, topological features, etc.) and physical barriers (e.g.: highways, major bridges, etc.) as major features that can affect socio-economic phenomena of a city, the theory of embeddedness draws attention to other less visible structures that affect human and institutional behaviour. In describing the relative isolation of the gangs in Hollenbeck from the rest of the city, Radil explains that the areas surrounding the Hollenbeck are “served by different public school districts” which greatly “restricts across-place social interactions” between youth in Hollenbeck and areas adjacent to it. In other words, the social networks arising from contact in schools forms a sort of wall around the neighbourhood, in the same way that natural features such as the Los Angeles River isolate the neighborhood. Combined with natural and physical barriers, the fact that youth in Hollenbeck are socialized with other youth in the same school system, and not with those of other areas “restricts” their behaviour insofar as they will not attempt to recruit youth outside of Hollenbeck as the simply don’t come into contact with them. Resultingly, there are “no are spatially proximate gangs” (312) to the Hollenbeck area.

Embeddedness—which Radil credits to the work of sociologist Mark Granovetter in the 1980s—may have first been discussed three decades ago, but the potential applications for predicting institutional behaviour may never have been greater. Notwithstanding concerns regarding legality and ethics, social media and mobile phone communication records may hold great potential in predicting the behaviour of criminal institutions, such as gangs. Today, much research into online social media interaction has revealed some of the restraints on social behaviour inherent to a person’s embeddedness. For instance, Facebook researchers found that the rate of virtual interaction between two people in a declared relationship held statistically significant correlations with the probability of the couple’s likelihood to break up. In a similar fashion, the interactions between members of the same or rival gangs might be used to predict turf war or intra-gang conflict. As the gangs of LA and many other cities have a “strong attachment to turf, or the territory under the direct control of a gang” (312), online interaction between two rival gangs or simple triangulation mapping the gang’s movement through the city might be used to predict likely coalitions, turf war, or fractions and, therefore, justify heightened enforcement or police department visibility in those areas.

-CRAZY15

Posted in 506 | Comments Closed

Spatializing Social Networks by Radil et al.

Monday, September 21st, 2015

Radil et al.’s (2010) article introduces methodological improvements in “spatializing social networks” through considering two forms of “embeddedness”: “closeness” and “position”(311). This article was able to highlight the importance of considering multiple network relations (e.g. gang relations and “turf”) because, in reality, various factors will affect human social behavior (e.g. gang violence) (312). Although Radil et al. considered “rivalry” and “turf” as social relations that cause criminal violence between different Hollenbeck gangs, it would have been impressive if they also accounted for social media communication (e.g. Twitter, Facebook) between the gangs and how it relates to locations of gang violence (313). With the increasing use of technology, especially within the younger generations, certainly social media would change how gangs interact within geographical space. However, it was stated clearly in the “Conclusion” section that their goal was to focus on a simple model that could support “future inquir[ies]” (322).

Radil et al. did not acknowledge GIScience even though the methodologies introduced by them would be considered within the GIScience’s discipline. The researchers reference Goodchild multiple times within the article, and mention the importance of “integrating social theories of geography and spatial analytical techniques,” but they still did not acknowledge the presence of GIScience within their own framework (308). After doing a little side research, I discovered that Steven Radil is a member of the GIScience department in University of Illinois (http://www.cigi.illinois.edu/igis/panelists.php) and Colin Flint also has associations with GIScience within different American universities. Even though Radil et al. consistently mention “spatial analysis” and “geography” and both advocate GIScience as a discipline, I wonder why they decided to omit GIScience from the article.

Furthermore, Radil et al. used GIS as a tool application to display their quantitative data in map form, allowing their data to be visualized for further clarity (320). It seems the methodologies applied were within the field of GIScience; however, Flint and Radil also used GIS and statistical techniques as well as George Tita’s crime data/research. This shows how GIScience works within multiple disciplines and utilizes multiple techniques (e.g. GIS and CONCOR).

-MTM

Posted in 506 | Comments Closed

Spatialized Social Networks: Gang Rivalries in East LA

Sunday, September 20th, 2015

Radil, Flint & Tita (2010) take into consideration both the socio-relational and geographic components of gang violence to examine the distribution of rivalries and amounts of violence in an area of East Los Angeles referred to as Hollenbeck. The aim of their study was to explore whether social networks (in this case, rivalries between certain gangs) could be used in conjunction with the spatiality of gangs to partially explain their behaviour (in this case, gang violence).

Considering the situation purely from a geographic point of view, Tita (2006) found through use of a global Moran’s I test that there was only very weak positive spatial autocorrelation of gang violence in Hollenbeck. Thus Radil, Flint & Tita considered the social relations between gangs as a partial explanation of where gang violence occurred. To do this they used a network analysis technique called CONCOR (convergence of iterated correlations), which recursively divides census block groups based on both geographic embeddedness (spatiality of gangs and gang violence) and network positionality (rivalries between gangs).

Unsurprisingly, the first split resulted in a north-south division of the area which can be explained by landscape: they are on opposite sides of a major highway. The results become more interesting in the second split, which divides the northern gang turf into a center-periphery arrangement, that can only be explained by network positionality and amounts of gang violence. The southern division followed the same pattern as the first split and was divided seemingly geographically into another north-south orientation. The third split continues to suggest center-periphery arrangements of gang turf, in which turf in the central areas has both higher amounts of gangs rivalling over it, and thus greater amounts of gang violence, while turf in the periphery areas have lower amounts of rivalry and violence.

The third split reveals the existence of a spatiality referred to as geographical betweenness: areas composed of the turf of several different gangs are more similar to each other in the amounts of gang violence than to other areas. At the same time, the study shows that relational betweenness also leads to similarity between areas in the amounts of gang violence experienced. Some areas are composed of the turf of only one gang, but experience similar amounts of violence due to the gang’s relational position between rival gangs that also happen to be rivals of each other.

While one could guess that geographic and relational betweenness are important to think about when considering levels of gang-related violence, it is great that Radil, Flint & Tita were able to find a way to actually model these behaviours using network analysis. Hopefully this study will encourage future use of social network analysis in GIScience to investigate the embeddedness of social behaviour across space.

-yee

Tags:
Posted in 506 | Comments Closed

Wright et al 1997

Tuesday, September 15th, 2015

The article is a good follow-up to Goodchild’s 1992 article. Perhaps it represents the first real “victory” for proponents of the scientific view of GIS, in which they manage to stand their ground in a debate with those who dismiss their viewpoint. What I get out of this article is insight into processes of technological and scientific discovery. People may invent an ingenious tool or technique, but it could take them a long time before they realize that they have unearthed something much bigger than a tool. Perhaps almost any given science can be thought of as an iceberg whose tip represents day-to-day application, but whose vast underwater body of understanding buoys that application. The author’s mention of applied sciences as a challenge to the simple tool/science dichotomy is very poignant. It reminds me that Agricultural science, as an applied science, would probably not meet the conservative definitions of science used by the “tool” side in this article, but agricultural science has certainly obtained prestige and support in the academy, and rightly so because agriculture is so widely practiced and fundamental to our survival. It is possible that after a technology is used for long enough and accumulates enough “reps” or a record of use, that only then can it finally be analyzed scientifically. Therefore the case for GIScience has gotten stronger over time. Finally, the article’s questioning of the very definition of science is important not only for GIS but for any important new field of study that is hindered by academic conservatism.

 

-yojo

 

Posted in General | Comments Closed

Goodchild 1992

Tuesday, September 15th, 2015

In this article we can see that Goodchild is an instrumental figure in GIS who wants to ensure that GIS ends up being a truly valuable contribution to society. The mere fact that a technology is developing rapidly doesn’t insure that people will know how to put it to revolutionary use. An impressive new tool may get its time in the limelight, but if during that brief moment it is merely put to innocuous uses than people may see it as a gimmick, in which case it will soon be forgotten about and overtaken by the next new technology. It reminds me a bit of Tamim Ansary’s book about Islamic civilization, in which he describes a steam engine that was invented in Persia before the one in Britain, but that it was used by a king merely to spin a rotisserie for a mutton banquet. Seeing it from this angle, I can’t be too critical of the fact that I found the paper quite dense and hard to read. When papers are hard to read it’s often because the writer doesn’t fully comprehend the subject matter. That’s totally forgivable in this case because Goodchild is doing his best to envision a new field of science that hasn’t yet been developed at the time of his writing. Despite the difficulty he goes about his task well, arguing for the uniqueness of GIS Science, identifying common questions to make it a cohesive science, and imagining how best it can establish itself among other sciences.

-yojo

Posted in General | Comments Closed

GIS: Tool or Science? Why not both?

Tuesday, September 15th, 2015

Is GIS a tool or science? Wright (1997) and many other academics seem to be of the opinion that GIS needs to either be considered as just the computer software which we use to analyse and produce spatial data, or the analysis of fundamental issues raised by its use. But why does it need to be one or the other? While it is true that for anyone to properly collect, analyse, or create spatial data, they should be aware of the uncertainty and error inherent in their results, I don’t believe that an understanding of the fundamental issues surrounding GIS is required to use GIS to produce meaningful results with a high degree of certainty in more basic instances of spatial analysis. Since its use has become so widespread, much of the GIS used today is rudimentary and can done without an academic background in the field. Scientists make up a small fraction of the users of GIS software, and while their work with GIS can definitely be called GIScience, I’m reluctant to call something as simple and infallible as running a buffer function on some points “GIScience”, because it’s not science. Using it for greater purposes such as large-scale planning, research and development on the other hand does require a good awareness of the fundamental issues that surround whatever it is you are doing.

-yee

Tags:
Posted in General | Comments Closed

Concerns for GIScience Brought up in Goodchild (1992) Still Relevant

Tuesday, September 15th, 2015

Goodchild wrote his 1992 article Geographical Information Science at a time when GIS was still relatively new and undeveloped as an academic field. Despite this he manages to pinpoint several problems in GIScience which have remained unsolved or unaddressed over the decades. Of course, many of the issues that make up the topics of discourse of GIScientists are inherent in spatial data collection and analysis and simply cannot be resolved due to a process Goodchild refers to as discretization. Discretization is the generalization of data such that it can be recorded and reproduced. Considering that most spatial data is approximated and cannot be recorded with 100% accuracy and precision, it is in good practice to always consider factors affecting spatial data uncertainty.

Goodchild mentions issues that can and have been resolved, such as the need for better frameworks for geographical data modelling, better integration of GIS and spatial analysis, a taxonomy of spatial analysis, and easier means of passing data between GIS and spatial analysis modules. I found it amusing that he comments on the obscurity of spatial analysis compared to other forms of GIS, given that spatial analysis is a core part of GIS today. Goodchild also expresses a desire for GIS meetings to become more science-focused rather than based around novelty and innovation, a problem in GIS that still seems prevalent given that many major GIS events are focused on showing off new tools and applications. In that sense he seems to be wrong when he says that GIS will be a short-lived practice if it is primarily used as a software used in applications. The use of GIS has become essential in any pursuit that takes spatial data into consideration, and I believe that this phenomenon has actually benefited GIScience through giving it exposure.

-yee

Tags:
Posted in General | Comments Closed

Twenty Years of Progress: GIScience in 2010

Tuesday, September 15th, 2015

In his article, Twenty Years of Progress: GIScience in 2010, Matthew Goodchild exposes the value of perceiving GIS as a science rather than a tool. GIS as a science is important because it has systematically enhanced our understanding of abstraction and theory, topological concepts, and ontologies. These insights are invaluable because they allow us to expand our capacity to discover the world around us. In addition, the limitations of GIS as a science expose flaws in existing epistemologies and gives the opportunity to develop future theories relating to various domains of research. For instance, GIScience’s emphasis on the topic of modeling error and uncertainty is of utmost importance for valid scientific method concerning spatial representation.

I was interested in Goodchild’s commentary about the role of the citizen in the future of GIScience. The emergence of the Web 2.0 and the public’s role as producer and consumer of spatial data is especially relevant to today’s generation. Discussions about the role of the citizen in GIScience brings to the forefront issues related to privacy and motivations for individuals to participate. The shift of how spatial data is handled nowadays sheds light on the future evolution of the technological and social systems we consume today.

-GeoBloggerRB

Posted in 506 | Comments Closed

GIS: Tool or Science?

Tuesday, September 15th, 2015

In her article, GIS: Tool or Science?, Dawn J. Wright presents a nuanced approach to the debate about whether “doing GIS” is synonymous with “doing science”. Her commentary on GIS as “tool making” avoids dichotomous paradigms and acknowledges the fluid and complex nature of GIS. I especially found it interesting that the article is based on the output of a relatively new medium of scholarly debate. The GIS-L, an informal and open way of bringing together academics and GIS professionals, reflects the role that evolving communication technologies play in scholarly dialogue. The open discussion acknowledges consensus-driven definitions in order to enhance the validity of each side of the argument. The forum also emphasizes how key terms of GIS are subject to contestation. The author neatly presents their findings in table format to easily contrast each sides arguments.

In addition, the article addresses both the very abstract significance and the real world consequences of the tool versus science debate. For instance, the author acknowledges that the tool versus science debate includes the differences in the types of epistemologies and ontologies that constitute scientific method. On a less abstracted level, she also points out that whether GIS is perceived as a tool, toolmaking, or science affects its role in academia. The answers to these questions determine whether GIS will be taught at the undergraduate level as a technical orientation or at the graduate level as a research speciality. Therefore, whether GIS is perceived as a tool or science has very real consequences and is therefore a discussion worth having.

– GeoBloggerRB

Posted in 506 | Comments Closed

Twenty Years of Progress – GI Science in 2010

Monday, September 14th, 2015

Goodchild begins by introducing the tool vs. science debate, but moves in a different direction than Wright, examining professional opinions: the result of conferences and symposiums among the top players in GI Science. I find this less accessible than Wright’s synopsis of the GIS L listserver, but Goodchild’s examination of the progress of GI Science at a professional level is perhaps a better indicator of the direction of the field. Goodchild focuses on the evolution and definition of the term GI Science. Goodchild describes GI Science as “the basic research field that seeks to redefine geographic concepts and their use in the context of Geographic Information Systems” (2010: 6). I find this definition supports the idea that GIS is more than a tool without overstepping the scope of GIS. The proposed conceptual framework for GIScience further cements the field as a legitimate science with its own boundaries and methodologies.

Smitty_1

 

Posted in General | Comments Closed

Twenty Years of Progress: GIScience in 2010

Monday, September 14th, 2015

Michael Goodchild’s 2010 Invited Keynote Article published in the Journal of Spatial Information Science recognizes the accomplishments and evolution of geographic information science over the last 20 years. Goodchild states early on that “this paper is intended more as a stimulus to others to reflect, and does not pretend to be entirely objective” (2010:03).

GIScience is an emerging field that is still ‘finding its legs’, so to speak, as techniques and concepts developed for application mainly in geography-related endeavors are used more and more by researchers interested in data error and uncertainty, local spatial analysis and statistics, and modelling natural and human phenomena (2010:08).

Goodchild’s use of diagrams to illustrate to readers the results of a citation analysis effectively shows the relation between GIScience researchers and the development of three main sub-domains within GIScience: Spatial analysis and decision-making, environmental modeling and topography, and lastly data modeling and representation (2010:09).

This keynote article accomplished its goal of stimulating reflection as to the origins of GIScience, and where it is going. Goodchild effectively demonstrated that GIScience is growing, with more research being published every year, and enriching the field even more. Goodchild includes a list of 19 peer-reviewed “classic” papers that illustrate through their title alone the multidisciplinary and evolving field that is GIScience (2010:10). He then lists several topics that have yet to be researched within GIScience, from “neogeography” to the “third, fourth, and fifth dimensions” (2010:14).

I agree with Goodchild in that reflection on the past is crucial to better understand what has left to be done and discovered. GIScience may have a relatively short history, but it is gaining some serious momentum. Now we have to ask ourselves, what will GIScience look like in another 20 years? And how will it have changed our understanding of the space that surrounds us?

-ClaireM

Posted in 506, General | Comments Closed

Goodchild 1992

Monday, September 14th, 2015

This article is a snapshot of scholarly attitudes towards GIS in 1992, and how the field needed to move from system to science. It is interesting to look at this article from a historical perspective, to see what the ancient GIS masters thought of their discipline. Goodchild expresses some frustration that his discipline is criticized as being too technology driven. Yet he himself says that we tend to treat GIS displays as flat, instead of exploiting their potential to display curved surfaces. He says that we need new technologies that can better display curved surfaces and 3d modelling. Today we have Google Earth Pro, which is now free to use for all, and many other paid 3d modelling GIS. Yet for the most part GIS continues to be worked on in either raster or vector on a virtual flat surface. Why? Because it works, not everything has to be modelled in 3d, just like directions to the grocery story don’t have to be a shortest path overlaid on 5x5m resolution satellite imagery. Goodchild states that the greatest advances in GIS research have been where technology itself stood in the way of solutions. He proposes turning the focus away from the tech towards the science but is coincidentally interested in advancing the technology. Well then perhaps GIS was slow to adopt 3d modelling and curved projections because they didn’t actually help solve GIScience.
-anontarian

Tags:
Posted in General | Comments Closed

GIS: Tool or Science at McGill?

Monday, September 14th, 2015

The ongoing debate of whether GIS is a science or a tool is an interesting one that plays out both in the academic world and in our own university. Students have been pushing for a GIS diploma, something similar to what many colleges offer and recognized by employers. Offering a diploma suggests that it is a tool; something to put on a CV: Proficiency in STATA, HTML and ArcGIS. That the university currently lacks such a diploma, and instead groups it within the Geography degree, suggests that administration is more supportive of the science side of the debate. GIS as a tool can be learned in lower courses, but courses like this one that promote GIS as a science are the capstone of our degree.
-annontarian

Posted in General | Comments Closed

Goodchild 2010

Monday, September 14th, 2015

In his 2010 update, Goodchild explains the developments in GIS over the past 20 years and where he expects the field to go in the next decade. His areas of further research really reveal how far the discipline has come technologically. For example in the 1992 article he discusses how the ability to show colour gradations needs to be improved. He speaks of being able to scan maps, and accurately recreate readable maps on screen. In 2010 he discusses the best ways of 3D/4D modelling and even adding fifth dimension of attributes that exist in space-time. His interest in new forms of GIS modelling shows how the field has tried to move away from maps as the end product. It is interesting to see how the field has diversified and the author’s perspective on GIS education. While some aspects of GIS have become increasingly complex ie. our modelling abilities, many basic parts of the GIS have become accessible to the general public. Whether or not education should focus on expanding the science or teaching the basic tools is an interesting debate. It seems that researchers would like to see it as a science, whereas firms that still use GIS for basic applications would probably see it as a tool.
-anontarian

Tags:
Posted in 506, General | Comments Closed

GIS: Tool or Science?

Monday, September 14th, 2015

Wright (1997) summarizes the debate over GIS as a tool or a science, saying that rather than there existing two sides of a debate, there are three positions GIS can take along a continuum. I found the idea of a continuum between tool, toolmaking and science to be an interesting visual. A continuum implies that there exist an infinite number of spaces between those points where an individual can find their relationship with GIS.

Wright discusses students learning GIS and the implications for these students of labeling GIS as a tool or a science. I am one of those students; however, as it’s been almost two decades since the article was published, it’s necessary to point out how far GIS has come since then. In my classes, it seems that learning GIS is a progression along the spectrum. In the introductory classes, we learn about GIS the tool, how to use the software, and how it is used in business, environment or urban planning. Next, we incorporate our own interests into GIS and find where our tool is lacking and start looking for ways to fill those gaps with toolmaking. Finally, in the most advanced classes, we can critique GIS itself and start asking the important questions of GIS such as, how do we incorporate space and time in a GIS visual? Who does GIS empower?

At the end of the article, this sentence in particular resonated with me: “GIS may represent a new kind of science, one that emphasizes visual expression, collaboration, exploration, and intuition, and the uniqueness of place” (Wright 358). This is certainly what I’ve seen of GIS and what I see in its future: a collaborative science based in the intuition of geography which explores technology.

-Denasaur

Posted in General | Comments Closed

Twenty Years of Progress

Monday, September 14th, 2015

I found the article by Goodchild to be engaging and easy to read. The article reads more like a reflection than an academic paper, as Goodchild explores the accomplishments, prominent literature, and advancements in the past 20 years of GIS. After reading the Wright 1997 article, this article is especially interesting to reflect on. It seems to address the “tool versus science” debate as closed, naming GIS academic journals with “science” in the title, and naming GIScientists that appear in academic circles. Goodchild names what the author sees as three subdomains of GIScience: the computer, the user and society. Perhaps it’s the computer that’s seen as the tool, not GIS.

A key difference between this article and the Wright 1997 article which was particularly striking to me was the difference in citizen participation in GIS. The Wright article discusses the viewpoints of a few privileged academics on GIS; however, as the Goodchild article clearly shows, GIS has become much less exclusive in the past two decades. In 1997, the prevalence of Open Street Map and Humanitarian OSM could not have been imagined. The “GIS community,” as Wright refers to it, has therefore expanded enormously in the past two decades, beyond just simply academics and high-level technicians. For some users, it may never be more than a tool – but for many others, it’s become a legitimate academic discipline and research focus.

Denasaur

Tags:
Posted in General | Comments Closed

Twenty years of progress: GIScience in 2010

Monday, September 14th, 2015

In “Twenty years of progress: GIScience in 2010” Michael Goodchild recognizes the 20th anniversary of the term “geographic information science” and aims to stimulate discussion on the advances, both past and future, of GIS. This piece definitely did engage my thoughts on the interdisciplinary aspects of the science and how it can struggle for an identity. My initial attraction to GIS and Geography was that it seemed to encompass so many different disciplines. While I understand the need to define GIScience as a unique field commanding respect from other scientific parties, it should not seek to define itself too rigidly. It is interesting to delve not just into the “what” of GIS but the “why” as the tools and capabilities become more complex. Goodchild could have expanded on the implication of GIS on social sciences and as an interesting “why” (we use GIS). I found myself wanting to know more about the shift from error to uncertainty and it’s coincidence with a shift in understanding of geographical conceptualization in a more globalized world.

This paper helped my understanding of how GIS could be a science to itself and what questions are still demanding answers. I enjoyed how Goodchild combined both technological advancement and areas lacking research at this time to pose thoughtful insights into the future of GIScience. Whatever the philosophical debate around GIS, there is no doubt that it has become a major player in the era of “big data” and is more in demand than ever before.

-VdeV

Posted in 506 | Comments Closed

Exploring GIS as a Tool and Science

Monday, September 14th, 2015

Wright’s exploration of GIS as a tool and a science still serves as satisfactory synopsis for a debate than began more than twenty years ago. In 1993, the internet was merely an ember of what would become a large inferno of constant discussion and diffusion of knowledge. This particular scholarly explores an informal conversation on the GIS-L electronic listserver, which took place in 1993 between GIS enthusiasts, academics, and frankly whoever felt the inclination to participate. This informality fueled Wright’s desire to write a formal scholarly article on the topic.

Wright et al.  delve into the main body of the discussion: Can we classify GIS as a science, or as an analytics tool? The latter implies that GIS is not legitimatized as its own field and is merely adopted to fields and disciplines to “advance the investigation of a problem,” while the former implies GIS is a synthesis of many Geographic disciplines possessing its own potential for theoretical advances and progression (1997: 355). Proponents of the scientific viewpoint denounce the tool-centric view as limiting, asserting that GIS has its own issues independent of the applications it is used for.

 

I was unaware of the debate surrounding the topic of GIS, and also unaware of the limitations of my tool-centric view. The view that Wright et al. arrive at in which they describe GIS and its users as a spectrum of tool users, tool makers, and scientists (I struggle to define/understand this last group) lends credibility to all aspects of GI science without highlighting the need for definition or denouncing any of the three viewpoints.

 

Smitty_1

Posted in General | Comments Closed

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »