Computers, Society, and Nature

Although written 15 years ago in 1997, (which seems like an eternity when considering the expansion of the World Wide Web) this paper by Wright et al. raises some excellent considerations when thinking about how we perceive GIS. GIS is a unique field in the fact that it is so closely knit to a “conventional” discipline (Geography), yet seems to now have its own place in academia. Prior to the writing of this paper (and others by Goodchild), GIS was widely considered as a useful tool to display or visualize findings across many spatially relevant disciplines, and nothing really more. While the view of GIS as a science existed among some of those heavily involved in the field, I think that it was less popular view as it is now. Today, more than ever, GIS has become more accepted as a discipline on its own rather than a vehicle for displaying data.
However, I believe Wright et al. drives the point home in the conclusion when they call for a need to shift away from ‘”black and white’ boxes of description” and move towards a more continuous definition of how GIS should be perceived. While I understand that defining GIS as a science eventually leads to more focus (and funding!) on the field, I cannot see the benefits in trying to encompass a set of rules in order to understand GIS as a science. The reason GIS is unique as a field is because of its versatility and it’s increasing power to contribute to societies in the world today. As of 2013, one cannot deny the amount of discourse concerning the scientific theories, models and analyses involved with the creation of various GIS. The paper by Harvey Miller clearly points this out, as we can no longer look at GIS as a purely objective tool but something that must be developed in line with a specific research question. However, being able to take the entire discipline and invoke rules to try and mimic conventional sciences will not work for GIS. Each individual project will have its own set of scientific methods involving a range of academic disciplines.

-Geogman15

The need for a people-based representation of space brought up by Miller is increasingly relevant as we continue in an age where distances are shrinking and populations become more mobile. It is no doubt that space has become less of an obstacle and time has become a larger constraint on our lives. Thus the need for more dynamic methods and models of representing the needs of populations in terms of transportation and urban resources is present. These are of course extremely complex and the sheer amount of information involved leads to a great deal of time and effort spent sifting through incoming data. I believe that this is where the difficulty lies. With techniques such as twitter scraping and SQL, there are ways to get a hold of this kind of data. However, what follows is the hard part. How do we decide what data is important? Does one space or group of people more relevant than another?

I understand that we can limit this by means of things like socioeconomic and neighborhood grouping, however I believe this inevitably leads to the kinds of generalizations that people-based GIS is trying to get away from. By attempting to choose which incoming information is deemed important or not, certain space-time activities will be ignored. This is, of course, combined with the gaps created by the digital divide can potentially lead to the marginalization of certain groups.
Overall, this movement to a people-based GIS will definitely lead to nuanced information and practices. Theoretically, transportation systems will become more efficient and become tailored more to the actual day-to-day activities of individuals in a city. It will just require a lot of work and a style of thinking never done before.

-Geogman15

The need for a people-based representation of space brought up by Miller is increasingly relevant as we continue in an age where distances are shrinking and populations become more mobile. It is no doubt that space has become less of an obstacle and time has become a larger constraint on our lives. Thus the need for more dynamic methods and models of representing the needs of populations in terms of transportation and urban resources is present. These are of course extremely complex and the sheer amount of information involved leads to a great deal of time and effort spent sifting through incoming data. I believe that this is where the difficulty lies. With techniques such as twitter scraping and SQL, there are ways to get a hold of this kind of data. However, what follows is the hard part. How do we decide what data is important? Does one space or group of people more relevant than another?
I understand that we can limit this by means of things like socioeconomic and neighborhood grouping, however I believe this inevitably leads to the kinds of generalizations that people-based GIS is trying to get away from. By attempting to choose which incoming information is deemed important or not, certain space-time activities will be ignored. This is, of course, combined with the gaps created by the digital divide can potentially lead to the marginalization of certain groups.

Overall, this movement to a people-based GIS will definitely lead to nuanced information and practices. Theoretically, transportation systems will become more efficient and become tailored more to the actual day-to-day activities of individuals in a city. It will just require a lot of work and a style of thinking never done before.

GEOGMan15

Although written 15 years ago in 1997, (which seems like an eternity when considering the expansion of the World Wide Web) this paper by Wright et al. raises some excellent considerations when thinking about how we perceive GIS. GIS is a unique field in the fact that it is so closely knit to a “conventional” discipline (Geography), yet seems to now have its own place in academia. Prior to the writing of this paper (and others by Goodchild), GIS was widely considered as a useful tool to display or visualize findings across many spatially relevant disciplines, and nothing really more. While the view of GIS as a science existed among some of those heavily involved in the field, I think that it was less popular view as it is now. Today, more than ever, GIS has become more accepted as a discipline on its own rather than a vehicle for displaying data.
However, I believe Wright et al. drives the point home in the conclusion when they call for a need to shift away from ‘”black and white’ boxes of description” and move towards a more continuous definition of how GIS should be perceived. While I understand that defining GIS as a science eventually leads to more focus (and funding!) on the field, I cannot see the benefits in trying to encompass a set of rules in order to understand GIS as a science. The reason GIS is unique as a field is because of its versatility and it’s increasing power to contribute to societies in the world today. As of 2013, one cannot deny the amount of discourse concerning the scientific theories, models and analyses involved with the creation of various GIS. The paper by Harvey Miller clearly points this out, as we can no longer look at GIS as a purely objective tool but something that must be developed in line with a specific research question. However, being able to take the entire discipline and invoke rules to try and mimic conventional sciences will not work for GIS. Each individual project will have its own set of scientific methods involving a range of academic disciplines.

GEOGMan15