Did GIS ultimately gain wide acceptance and legitimacy because of, rather than in spite of its use as a tool?
“My intent was to capture those aspects of GIS research … that could drive a science that would eventually earn the respect of the academy – that would lead, for example, to election of GIS researchers to the US National Academy of Sciences or the UK’s Royal Society (the field has been successful on both counts), or to the establishment of professorships in GIS in the most prestigious insitutions (sic).” (p. 2).
“The concept of GIScience seems to have been adopted enthusiastically.” (p. 2).
“After 15 years there seems every reason to believe that GIScience is a genuine, challenging, and fruitful area for scientific research with its own unique scientific questions and discoveries.” (p. 2).
I would still question whether this condition could ever have materialized without the expanded use and application of GIS as a tool, particularly with the impact of the Internet and the Web, and therefore perhaps much of the adoption of GIScience relates less to the unique scientific questions and discoveries of GIS and more to the niche that GIS fills primarily as a tool and methodology. I see this reflected even in Goodchild’s concluding topics: Integration of processes, use by nonexperts and citizens, and application to non-geographic spaces. Each of these to me speaks to the expansion and development of GIS as a tool rather than a distinct scientific discipline. I would also ask whether fruitful and challenging epistemological questions regarding GIS as a tool remain under-emphasized in this quest for greater respect and the associated resources as a science.
Mabu