Goodchild reflects on how far GIS has come in the last 15 years since his first assertion of a science rather than a system. Although I understand his concern, i’m not entirely convinced that we have come as far as he interprets that we have in recognizing the science of GIS. In 1992, he used the analogy to describe the data handlers of the GIS world as mere workers for the “United Parcel Service of GIS”. I can easily see why he was frustrated with the notion, as it gives very little credit to the field, or the individual who is operating the program. His description of the perception of GIS in 1992 made it sound like people viewed it as one of those automated robots on the assembly line that required no intelligence but rather a detailed set of commands, that required only a simple program to run. This perception has definitely changed, if it was indeed as extreme as he describes.
Over the 15 years between articles, Goodchild mentions the strides that have been made in viewing GIS as something more substantial than simply a “Parcel Service”. It is actually quite impressive to think of the changes that have been made, and the support that GIS now has since his first conference in 1992. Obviously, the growth of the internet has permitted an accessability to datasets and ideas that would have never been possible in the past, so that could be one of the key cogs in the advancement of the percepetion of GIS. The problem that I see is that although you could argue, as Goodchild does, that it is a science, and that university programs are now recognizing it just as they would any other discipline – it seems like you need those other disciplines to do anything with GIS. Running data for geography, biology, geology, atmospheric science all require knowledge and understanding of those respective fields in order to obtain what you would like with GIS. It may be a complex tool that requires the user to be strong in a particular discipline, however it seems that it is more of a tool than a science.
Goodchild believes that more work needs to be done in order for GIS to be recognized as a science, and I would definitely have to agree. Major changes in the way GIS is used, or the way in which processes are characterized could lead to an improvement in the perception of GIS as a science.
Buzz