Archive for October, 2015

Rundstrom 1995

Monday, October 5th, 2015

For me the most striking aspect of this article relates to differing attitudes toward uncertainty. I have done extensive reading on uncertainty for my upcoming seminar and uncertainty is regarded in textbooks as something to be “aware of” and “open about”, as if it were an affliction. By contrast, Rundstrom points out that many indigenous cultures consider uncertainty (in particular ambiguity) to be a key enriching element of existence. Of course, this idea is not alien to western cultures, as we also find that the deepest of meanings are intangible. Furthermore, we are theoretically aware that in reality most strict boundaries and definitions are socially constructed. However, GIScience still seems to be fundamentally incapable of helping us to view uncertainty positively, because ultimately a GIS must work with either objects or pixels. Taking this into consideration, we should certainly heed Rundstrom’s warning that the effort to promote GIS in indigenous communities is likely to further suffocate indigenous worldviews. On the other hand, we must take care not to look at indigenous communities as passive entities with no agency. In many situations indigenous people may feel that in order for their communities to thrive while surrounded by non-indigenous civilization, they must forge a connection with us so that they can “manage” us. GIS could easily fit into this type of strategy. Ultimately, I think that as GIS practitioners we will have to scrutinize every application of GIS to indigenous culture to so as to discern whether it is truly a decision made by indigenous communities to use GIS or if it is imposed on them from outside with a colonial mindset.

– Yojo

 

TEK in GIS?

Monday, October 5th, 2015

One of the central themes in Rundstrom’s text on GIS, Indigenous Peoples, and Epistemological Diversity is the idea that indigenous epistemologies and current GIS technologies are inherently incompatible.  He cites the fundamental difference in the western world’s definition and understanding of energy and matter to that of the indigenous peoples as well as differences in temporal change as two of the reasons for this.  I immediately connected this to my research topic for this course, geospatial ontologies.  Epistemologies are concerned with how one procures knowledge while ontologies more are concerned with defining the nature of being.   Both work to inform us on how we’ve come understand what we do.  More specifically geospatial ontologies aid us in the defining and the reasoning of real world spatial phenomena.

Though I agree with Rundstrom’s point that indigenous people’s geographic knowledge should be separated from GIS for ethical purposes (and I am not advocating the disenfranchising of indigenous communities by any means), I disagree with the idea that they are fundamentally incompatible.  By utilizing indigenous knowledge into geospatial ontologies (perhaps creating indigenous specific geospatial ontologies) I think it is possible to combine the two.  This will not be achieved without difficulty since our current GIS framework is centered on the Western world view, as specified by Rundstrom.   However, I think that by acknowledging this we have the potential to develop a new framework where a new understanding of environment may be incorporated.

Rundstrom very well may argue that my position towards this is part of the problem and that I am a symptom of the insensitivity of the western world.  I would argue that since 1995 we have made advances in GIS, GIScience, and the world’s valuation of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK).  On behalf of both parties, whom ought to find common ground and work together to protect the environment, these two world views must be integrated and I think GIS is the most feasible platform to achieve this.

 

-BannerGrey

 

GIS: Just another means of colonization?

Monday, October 5th, 2015

Rundstrom’s 1995 article “GIS, Indigenous Peoples and Epistemological Diversity” is an insightful critique of how geospatial technologies and Western science are fundamentally incompatible, exclusive and oppressive to indigenous epistemologies. For me, this has been the most thought-provoking topic yet. It made me reflect on just how pervasive and deeply-rooted colonialism is, how indigenous epistemologies have survived, and how that implicates me as a student of GIScience.

Rundstrom states that he understands GIS as a “technoscience,” which “modify and transform the worlds which are revealed through them” (46). Rundstrom actually highlights the division between GIS as a science and a tool. As a science, GIScience is fundamentally incompatible with indigenous worldviews. For centuries, Western science has actively invalidated indigenous ways of knowing. The legacy of colonization lives on through our settler society, which continues to inhabit stolen indigenous land. Western science’s desire to know more, to represent more, to describe more of our world is the means to exploit more, expand more and take more. As a tool, GIS is a technology, which have historically been used for assimilation and continue colonization. The technical capability, language (jargon) and education required to participate in the use of technologies also exclude indigenous people and their ways of knowing. Undeniably, our tools hold power over other people.

Where does this leave GIS, and indigenous ways of knowing and describing geography? I think Rundstrom would argue that indigenous knowledge should not be incorporated into GIS for the sake of taking what is “useful” to us and leaving the rest – which is historically what has been done, again and again, to indigenous groups through colonialism. Instead, indigenous groups could use it for their own aims, because GIS is likely to be believed by empirically-minded policymakers. For example, Operation Thunderbird uses crowdsourced mapping to display information on missing and murdered indigenous women: http://www.giswatch.org/en/country-report/womens-rights-gender/canada. Although GIS still has a long way to go before it can be at all compatible with indigenous epistemologies, it has potential to be an advantageous political tool.

-denasaur

GIS, Indigenous Peoples, and Epistemological Diversity

Monday, October 5th, 2015

Rundstrom’s article “GIS, Indigenous Peoples, and Epistemological Diversity” (1995) discusses how indigenous cultures perceive “geographical knowledge” differently compared to North American and European Westerners (45). Even though there are different cultural perspectives on spatial knowledge, there has been a tendency for GIS to be ethnocentric, focusing on Westernized epistemology and ignoring the cross-cultural variations in understanding landscapes. As someone who studies anthropology and geography, I agree with Rundstrom’s proposition that the “GIS research agenda [should] include cross-cultural studies of knowledge transformations and culture change;” however, since Rundstrom’s article, there has been technological advancements and offspring disciplines, such as Qualitative GIS and GIScience, that consider different perspectives (45). Before I discuss how GIScience has contributed, I do want to make a point that even though GIS is known for being “eurocentric,” GIS researchers wanted to develop a systematic procedure for data collection and modeling (55). Now with improvements in technology, we can veer away from authoritative systematic analyses and allow everyday citizens, including indigenous people, to contribute their own geographic information. This is what volunteered geographic information (VGI) is, and what I am researching for my final project.

Within GIScience, VGI accepts amateur volunteers’ geographic information; this means indigenous peoples can use the internet to geotag a specific location that pertains to their culture and describe that location’s significance to them. This can be done in Google Maps or Yelp, where the geotagged area and small description can provide a more enriched epistemology that can be collected and analyzed by an outside party. Nevertheless, it is not that simple, collecting data from amateur internet users introduces topics on accuracy and how to properly validate the information as correct – there are still debates on how to define which volunteered knowledge is valid or not. In some cases, websites have volunteer monitors that check accuracy in what people write; thus, some reviewers may not objectively agree with an indigenous person’s subjective description on a certain place.

Similarly to what we discussed last class, geospatial agent based-models may also be able to show variations in geographical knowledge as technology and technical methodologies improve; maybe an agent can receive multiple attributes that can enhance how they perceive their landscape. This can allow for a more diverse epistemology. Therefore, since Rundstrom’s article, there have been improvements in GIS to account for “epistemological diversity,” but there is still room to grow (45).

-MTM