Computers, Society, and Nature

In “Spatializing Social Networks: Using Social Network Analysis to Investigate Geographies of Gang Rivalry, Territoriality, and Violence in Los Angeles”, Radil, Flint and Tita describe the current academic understanding of embeddedness and how it was integrated into their study of geographic gang violence in an LA neighbourhood. I liked this study because while the idea sounds intuitive when explained, it shows a clear advancement in the field of space conceptualization.

The exclusionary vernacular used in the theory section was something that could have been improved upon. However, the neighbourhood gang violence provided more clarity to the topic and my understanding of the first section improved after the second full reading of the article. I like the concept of different types of embeddedness and especially the reference to Massey’s work and the idea that social networks are “stretched out over space” – a key finding in the subsequent gang violence study. The description of the CONCOR method was initially confusing but seemed like an innovative way to use quantitative methods to provide more qualitative results.  A potential follow-up could see if there were any new connections teased out by investigating the neutral or positive relations between gangs. I would also like to see how the final figure (6C) matched up to various locals’ perspectives on where gang territories were defined versus the formal census blocks. Finally, the specific acknowledgement of the study as a static view piqued my interest as to how temporal scales could be included in the future. Overall a thought-provoking read.

-VdeV

The article Spatializing Social Networks: Using Social Network Analysis to Investigate Geographies of Gang Rivalry, Territoriality, and Violence in Los Angeles by Radil et al. (2010) gives light to not only the relevance of the GIScience (though the authors don’t explicitly use the term GIScience) lens but also to its broad applicability for understanding social problems.  The authors first examine the idea of embeddedness, an integral theme of geography, and tie this to the gang’s territoriality and associated violence.  These two variables work very well for defining the social networks of gangs as their relationships are based on continuing rivalries.  I was particularly intrigued by how they used three splits of correlations analyses to quantify the relationships between territories; this has potential to offer increased surveillance of areas potentially considered hot spots as well as outlining areas for interventions.  By interventions I’m thinking of targeted anti-gang education and off-the-street programs for schools in the Region, especially since the school district was mentioned as one of the social factors separating the gangs in Hollenbeck from interacting with gangs in the rest of LA.  Lastly and on a larger scale, social networks have always been an integral part of humanity as we are inherently social beings, but as the world becomes more interconnected (via globalization) I am left contemplating the implications of such rapidly expanding social networks and how spatial networks will continue to shape the modern world?

-BannerGrey

In the article, Spatializing Social Networks: Using Social Network Analysis to Investigate Geographies of Gang Rivalry, Territoriality, and Violence in Los Angeles, the authors explain how social network theory methods can be applied to GIS in order to render a better contextualization of the territoriality of gang violence in Los Angeles (2010). I found it noteworthy that methodological applications of GIScience using social science analysis have the potential to inform activism against systems of violence and oppression. Pursuing methods to investigate the patterning of social relations through a geographic lens allows geographers the power to compare and devise patterns of violence at other scales and geographies. Therefore, the methods discussed within the paper have the capacity to inform widespread policy dedicated to ending gang violence on a large scale.

The application of social network theory methods to GIS reminds me that “doing GIS” is in fact a representation and assertion of social regulation and power. I suspect that my lack of knowledge about social network theory and structural equivalence limited the impact of the article’s insights for me. However, I do know that space as a social construction, rather than merely informing social process, is an important assertion and fundamental to critical GIS. The paper’s examination of gang violence in L.A. underscores that critical GIS plays an important role within the discipline of GIScience. Hopefully, future GIScience research will embrace critical GIS in order to more accurately understand how spatial social networks result in material geographic realities.

-GeoBloggerRB

In his article “Spatializing Social Networks: Using Social Network Analysis to Investigate Geographies of Gang Rivalry, Territoriality, and Violence in Los Angeles”, Steven Radil uses the idea of embeddedness—or the idea that there are “structural constraint[s] on social action” (Radil 309)—to describe the occurrence of gang-related violence in the Hollenbeck Policing Area of Los Angeles. Although urban geographers have long been attentive to natural barriers (e.g.: rivers, topological features, etc.) and physical barriers (e.g.: highways, major bridges, etc.) as major features that can affect socio-economic phenomena of a city, the theory of embeddedness draws attention to other less visible structures that affect human and institutional behaviour. In describing the relative isolation of the gangs in Hollenbeck from the rest of the city, Radil explains that the areas surrounding the Hollenbeck are “served by different public school districts” which greatly “restricts across-place social interactions” between youth in Hollenbeck and areas adjacent to it. In other words, the social networks arising from contact in schools forms a sort of wall around the neighbourhood, in the same way that natural features such as the Los Angeles River isolate the neighborhood. Combined with natural and physical barriers, the fact that youth in Hollenbeck are socialized with other youth in the same school system, and not with those of other areas “restricts” their behaviour insofar as they will not attempt to recruit youth outside of Hollenbeck as the simply don’t come into contact with them. Resultingly, there are “no are spatially proximate gangs” (312) to the Hollenbeck area.

Embeddedness—which Radil credits to the work of sociologist Mark Granovetter in the 1980s—may have first been discussed three decades ago, but the potential applications for predicting institutional behaviour may never have been greater. Notwithstanding concerns regarding legality and ethics, social media and mobile phone communication records may hold great potential in predicting the behaviour of criminal institutions, such as gangs. Today, much research into online social media interaction has revealed some of the restraints on social behaviour inherent to a person’s embeddedness. For instance, Facebook researchers found that the rate of virtual interaction between two people in a declared relationship held statistically significant correlations with the probability of the couple’s likelihood to break up. In a similar fashion, the interactions between members of the same or rival gangs might be used to predict turf war or intra-gang conflict. As the gangs of LA and many other cities have a “strong attachment to turf, or the territory under the direct control of a gang” (312), online interaction between two rival gangs or simple triangulation mapping the gang’s movement through the city might be used to predict likely coalitions, turf war, or fractions and, therefore, justify heightened enforcement or police department visibility in those areas.

-CRAZY15

In his article, Twenty Years of Progress: GIScience in 2010, Matthew Goodchild exposes the value of perceiving GIS as a science rather than a tool. GIS as a science is important because it has systematically enhanced our understanding of abstraction and theory, topological concepts, and ontologies. These insights are invaluable because they allow us to expand our capacity to discover the world around us. In addition, the limitations of GIS as a science expose flaws in existing epistemologies and gives the opportunity to develop future theories relating to various domains of research. For instance, GIScience’s emphasis on the topic of modeling error and uncertainty is of utmost importance for valid scientific method concerning spatial representation.

I was interested in Goodchild’s commentary about the role of the citizen in the future of GIScience. The emergence of the Web 2.0 and the public’s role as producer and consumer of spatial data is especially relevant to today’s generation. Discussions about the role of the citizen in GIScience brings to the forefront issues related to privacy and motivations for individuals to participate. The shift of how spatial data is handled nowadays sheds light on the future evolution of the technological and social systems we consume today.

-GeoBloggerRB

In her article, GIS: Tool or Science?, Dawn J. Wright presents a nuanced approach to the debate about whether “doing GIS” is synonymous with “doing science”. Her commentary on GIS as “tool making” avoids dichotomous paradigms and acknowledges the fluid and complex nature of GIS. I especially found it interesting that the article is based on the output of a relatively new medium of scholarly debate. The GIS-L, an informal and open way of bringing together academics and GIS professionals, reflects the role that evolving communication technologies play in scholarly dialogue. The open discussion acknowledges consensus-driven definitions in order to enhance the validity of each side of the argument. The forum also emphasizes how key terms of GIS are subject to contestation. The author neatly presents their findings in table format to easily contrast each sides arguments.

In addition, the article addresses both the very abstract significance and the real world consequences of the tool versus science debate. For instance, the author acknowledges that the tool versus science debate includes the differences in the types of epistemologies and ontologies that constitute scientific method. On a less abstracted level, she also points out that whether GIS is perceived as a tool, toolmaking, or science affects its role in academia. The answers to these questions determine whether GIS will be taught at the undergraduate level as a technical orientation or at the graduate level as a research speciality. Therefore, whether GIS is perceived as a tool or science has very real consequences and is therefore a discussion worth having.

– GeoBloggerRB

In “Twenty years of progress: GIScience in 2010” Michael Goodchild recognizes the 20^th anniversary of the term “geographic information science” and aims to stimulate discussion on the advances, both past and future, of GIS. This piece definitely did engage my thoughts on the interdisciplinary aspects of the science and how it can struggle for an identity. My initial attraction to GIS and Geography was that it seemed to encompass so many different disciplines. While I understand the need to define GIScience as a unique field commanding respect from other scientific parties, it should not seek to define itself too rigidly. It is interesting to delve not just into the “what” of GIS but the “why” as the tools and capabilities become more complex. Goodchild could have expanded on the implication of GIS on social sciences and as an interesting “why” (we use GIS). I found myself wanting to know more about the shift from error to uncertainty and it’s coincidence with a shift in understanding of geographical conceptualization in a more globalized world.

This paper helped my understanding of how GIS could be a science to itself and what questions are still demanding answers. I enjoyed how Goodchild combined both technological advancement and areas lacking research at this time to pose thoughtful insights into the future of GIScience. Whatever the philosophical debate around GIS, there is no doubt that it has become a major player in the era of “big data” and is more in demand than ever before.

-VdeV

I have always considered GIS to be a science since it allowed me to undertake analysis of material in a way that resulted in a new understanding of spatial data. It maintained clear methodology and followed the scientific process. However, I clearly saw the programs used to reach such conclusions as a necessary tool of the trade. It was not until reading the 1997 piece “GIS: Tool or Science” by Wright et al. that I even knew there could be conflict in my conceptualization of GIS.

Wright et al. determined the act of “doing GIS’ to be divided into three categories: using GIS as a tool for research purposes, actively making GIS a more advanced tool, and doing GIS as a science, where further scientific advancement stemmed from initial GIS capabilities. While this article introduced an interesting topic of debate, my final understanding of the subject was not clarified much further by the GIS-L analysis presented.

The evolution of GIS since 1997 is obvious when reading this paper. I think the argument has advanced beyond many of the initial questions posed. For example, one person postulated that GIS would become more of a science when it divorced itself from geography – we could argue that GIS is now being used for other projects beyond basic spatial interpretation.

Another interesting note is there are many questions, and the paper as a whole, that I would argue remain very relevant to current discussion. Google Scholar shows that this piece has been cited 254 times and I personally wonder if GIS has evolved more into a science since the publishing of this piece. Linking back to our class discussion, if GIS is seen to only create maps then of course it will be recognized as a tool, but if further capabilities are imagined and implemented, a new science emerges.

-VdeV

Goodchild’s (1992) article is centered on the fear that unless GIS makes the transition from being considered a system to a science, it will soon fade away as another technological fad.  One of Goodchild’s main concerns at the time was that GIS, though inherently useful, was restrained by its problematic integration into other fields (i.e. spatial analysis).  He attributed this to a focus on data management rather than analysis—a result of the lack of motivation to develop the necessary technology due to the “lucrative” yet “unsophisticated” needs of GIS in the commercial world (1992:38)—and also to the sheer obscurity of spatial analysis as a technique.  Currently, spatial analysis functions as an extension of ArcMap and is fundamentally a part of GIS as I know it.

Though Goodchild’s article was riddled with unanswered questions (at the time) I think he played an integral role in developing the case for GIScience by highlighting how multidisciplinary the field really is.  For example we look at spatial analytics, and with the wisdom of the future I believe this specifically was an important point to broach.  Bearing in mind that this system vs. science debate is still ongoing, I think the development of a concrete tie to analytics was beneficial for those making the case for GIS as a science.  Goodchild, an avid member of the academic community, recognizes academia’s requirement of a certain level of ‘rigor’ for a field to be considered a science and spatial analytics, now at the heart of GIS, absolutely brings this edge.

-BannerGrey

Over the past twenty years, opinions on what “’doing GIS’” entails have been debated. In “GIS: Tool or Science?” (1997), Wright was able to categorize “64 postings from 40 individuals” on a GIS-L forum into three groupings of what “’doing GIS’” means (346-347). Regardless of whether GIS should be defined as a tool, a toolmaker, or a science, Wright was able to present all three positions in an unbiased way, allowing the reader to determine their own opinions about the debate.

Wright mentions that there is not necessarily one ultimately correct or authoritative position, rather the entire “continuum” between tool and science should be equally acknowledged because all viewpoints use GIS for different purposes (358). Hence, maybe it does not even matter if “’doing GIS’” is correctly defined, maybe there should be a consensus that GIS can be applied in different ways and be accepted for different reasons.

Although the debate is still occurring, I believe that the article was outdated because technological advancements within the past twenty years have been tremendous. With smartphones, apps, and improvements in software, new GIS applications have been introduced; resulting in a larger group of people becoming more involved with GIS. It would be interesting to compare how Wright’s subsets’ define GIS to how current people conceptualize GIS.

-MTM

Goodchild (2010) provides an overview on geographic information science (GIScience) and its development as a discipline in the past twenty years (1990-2010). He then opens up discourse on how GIScience can be improved and applied in the future. What I was most interested in was not necessarily GIScience’s accomplishments as a discipline, but rather how its theorizing elements can be applied and improved for the future, especially with technology constantly changing. For instance, Goodchild questions how GIScience will handle large quantities of data that are being produced from new devices. He additionally questions how security will be managed. I admire Goodchild’s ability to raise unanswered questions because it shows that there are still many issues in GIS that need to be addressed. His discourse on the “role of the citizen” also spiked my interest because I would like to research how local people in underdeveloped countries/cities can contribute data (13-14).

What I think is unique about modern GIScience is its ability to mix with other disciplines (i.e. “geography, computer science, or information science”); however, contrary to what Goodchild states, I believe it is this reason that GIScience is not “well-defined” (16). Since it crosses over many disciplinary boundaries it is hard to establish itself as its own entity. I do not doubt the importance of GIScience, but it is still not that well known because, in my own opinion, spatial awareness is not a distinct enough feature to separate itself from other disciplines. It is especially hard to maintain a solid definition of GIScience because of how much it is evolving with technological advancements. For these reasons, I see GIScience being complementary to other larger disciplinary fields (just like how GIS tool applications can be used to help support research).

-MTM

Wright et al. (1997) compound the debate amongst the GIS-L community as to whether GIS should be regarded as a tool or as a science.  In doing so Wright et al. also delve into profounder topics such as defining “doing science”.  Wright et al. identify three positions, on a sliding spectrum between tool and science: GIS as a tool, GIS as a toolmaking, and, GIS as a science.

My experience with GIS thus far is to utilize it as a tool for answering geography related questions; nevertheless, I fully understand and accept the view of GIS as a science when looking at research within the field.  Encountering this dichotomy in my everyday suggests the importance of how GIS is used on a case-by-case basis.  While Wright et al. do address this; I believe it was underemphasized in the article (and similarly the debate) as this is essentially the basis for the argument for a necessary shift from the “black-and-white” to a “fuzzier continua” of descriptions for conceptualizing GIS (1997: 358).

Secondly, this article brought to my attention the merit of regarding something as a science simply as a means of maintaining “academic legitimacy” (1997: 354).  Not all usages of GIS will be regarded as science, however this should not devalue it as a discipline.  I think this dilemma as presented to us by Wright et al. is extremely important to defy and not only in the fields of geography and GIS.  The idea that something is automatically more reputable because we somewhat arbitrarily categorize it under “doing science” means we are likely limiting our advancements as a society and I applaud Wright et al. for raising this issue.

-BannerGrey

Upon reading Yuan’s work on Temporal GIS and Spatio-temporal modelling, I have come to the realization that our current GIS systems are very much ill equipped to handle the storage and processing of all kinds of spatio-temporal models. Spatial is specials, yes, but all spaces are placed in time. We cannot ignore the fact that temporal is special too, everything happens in space and time. Most GIS data represents spatial information that is fixed in time, a slice of the full reality. Name me one process or object that hasn’t changed over time and I’ll bake you a cake of your choice.

The complexity of the six major types of spatial temporal changes in geographic information spoke to my unfamiliarity with such concepts. After 6 years of experience with GIS the subject of temporal GIS has not been addressed adequately to reflect the need to deeper development in this field. The need for further research is all too clear. The current GIS systems are incapable of modeling the temporal changes that most accurately describe phenomena such as forest fires or the development of storm systems in which objects change and transform over space and time. THe lack of support for such basic concepts echoes the incompatibility of GIS with other ways of knowing and the epistemology of the indigenous populations of northern Canada in particular.

The question remains: how will traditional GIS tools as we know them adopt and change to better address the potential that resides in these spheres, more importantly still how will implementation take place in the field? The introduction of a new data model that allows for the efficient and effective temporal analysis of phenomena would cause an overhaul in data structures as we know them, such changes would be well worth the effort. To continue as we currently do would be unfortunate.

With the advances in computational power that have led to rapid advances in geovisualization, the same tools should be directed towards the development of capability to handle all forms of temporal GIS.

– Othello