Well, that was a good debate back then… I’m glad that the issue is solved and that GIS as a science is now accepted. Science is not about having answers; it is about asking questions. We now have resources to think critically about how GIS has an impact on the society, and conversely how the social, cultural, political and economic dynamics influence GIS developments. I’m glad that we (westerners) are less and less going into non western communities or working with marginalized groups saying: “I have the tools to solve your problems!”. Science brings a critical and analytical point of view when working with GIS to answer research questions, or when directly questioning the GIS itself.
I’m glad that we (academics) let go of that epistemological debate about GIS, and that we are focusing more on ontological issues about GIS, on ways to represent qualitative information, and on ways to make GIS accessible, useful and beneficial to marginalized populations.
The text from Harvey J. Miller shows how it is important to think critically about GIS. It’s not perfect, and sometimes it’s not well designed to look at specific issues. Miller argue that the urban and transportation dynamics are changing with the globalization and in turn, the GIS technology has to be adapted in order to assess the everyday life practices of people. The idea of a full-circle is also present in the first text : “GIS: Tool or Science?” (sidewalkballet also saw it!). Technology (GIS toll and GIS toolmaking) influences the society (science) and in turn society influences the technology. Maybe GIScience looks like a spiral with the mutual influences of technology and society (see image: spiral). The society and researchers are questionning the developments of the technology, it’s making the spiral go backwards but after that, there is a shift to a new loop that gets bigger as it evolve.
Finally, I’m glad to be in a GIScience course and to think critically about all of this!
S_Ram