Two sides of the same coin

According to Wight and company, GIS can be understood as something along a continuum ranging from tool to science, with three positions being distinguished: GIS is a tool, GIS is toolmaking, GIS as a science.  But what do they mean when they use the term ‘GIS’? By failing to clearly define the term, they create a space for the GIS-L discussants to define the term as a tool, a science or something in between. Can we meaningfully discern which of these categories accurately describe GIS? Do the descriptions presented in the article actually define ‘GIS’, or do they reflect their various levels of experience with and knowledge of ‘GIS’? Those that wanted to define GIS as tool did so by highlighting its technological and practical aspects, while those that wanted to define GIS as a Science, stressed its theoretical and conceptual facets.  Could these be two sides of the same coin?

While the distinction has significant implications for academics, academia and the legitimacy of the field, the very existence of a lively debate highlights the multifaceted and complex nature of a field that is gaining more notice from the academy and academics.

Over 15 since the writing of the article, the debate has tilted in the favor of GIS as a Science – we wouldn’t have this class if it wasn’t the case.

Fan_G

 

Comments are closed.