Wright et al. released an article in 1997 title “GIS: Tool or Science” which attempts to gauge the perceived position of GIS along a continuum from ‘this could add a nice figure to my research’ all the way to ‘GIS-ology (science!)’. The authors used opinionated data from a user-driven debate on a GIS listserv on the topic and found that the users perceived GIS as either a ‘tool’, a ‘toolmaking’ endeavor, or a ‘science’. Clearly GIS can be seen in many a different lights, even among us GIS nerds. As geographers – I am told – we are the perfect creatures to be paired with GIS because we uniquely combine the ability to think about data management in terms of space and a knowledge of physical surface phenomena of the planet. The authors found that 2 dynamic forces were at work that caused this difference of opinion among GISers: how the users define ‘science’, and whether or not GIS is distinct enough to be considered a science.
Without getting into too much epistemology, the authors attempt to dissect the philosophy of science. What I found more interesting than their definition of science was the way they de-blurred the line between technology and science by saying GIS must meet 4 criteria. Significant? Check… Challenging? check check check… inadequate research in other disciplines? Definitely… Commonality among issues? Why does it feel like I keep repeating myself.. Sounds like it has crossed the boundary to me!
On the other hand, if GIS is a science, and not all geography students are scientists, then am I correct in saying that it must emerge from under the umbrella of the ‘geography’ discipline? The authors point out that GIS is what brought legitimacy to geography in academia, but if GIS wants to be popularly recognized as GIScience then it must expose the third criteria of technology as a science; it must show how it is distinct from existing sciences. In all GISeriousness, grad students now perform research projects on GIS all over the world and its hard not to see it as a science… but maybe im just an ignorant youngster – I was only 6 years old when this article was published, after all.
Reference:
Wright, D. J., M. F. Goodchild, and J. D. Proctor. (1997). Demystifying the persistent abiguity of GIS as “tool” versus “science”. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 87(2) pp. 346–362.
-Pointy McPolygon