Nelson talks of the future challenges the incoming generation of spatial statisticians and analysts will face. One, in particular, is the dilution of geography’s influence over the trajectory of the field of spatial analysis. According to a survey of some 24 respondents, there is a risk of “training issues” if “spatial sciences are adopted by many groups and lack a core rooted in geography.” This is a very isolationist way of thinking. If a field is to be dominated entirely by one group of common thinking individuals, it is bound to hit a dead end.
A nondescript, military-in-mind, ramshackle structure was constructed in Cambridge, Massachusetts during World War II. Its purpose was to develop and perfect radar, an instrument that was instrumental in the war effort. Like all wars, once it was over, the building had served its purpose and was intended to be demolished. Tight for space, Massachusetts Institute of Technology crammed a hodgepodge of disciplines into the structure. Before it’s demolition, 50 years later, it had come to be known as the “Magic Incubator.” Numerous technological advances stemmed from the building, many of which could have been accomplished without work across multiple, previously, unrelated disciplines.
Spatial analysis can gain from the weakening of geography’s grip on the subject, allowing different minds with different problems to use and adapt the tool as needed. Until then, spatial analysis will be on the path to innovation, with little invention branching off.
AMac
Tags: 506