Computers, Society, and Nature

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

The Wright et al (1997) article describes three positions taken from the GIS-L debate, placed on a continuum from tool to science. However, the examples used to prove/disprove that GIS is a science aren’t more obvious than the debate itself. One of the arguments is that if GIS is a science, then so is statistical software. Geography and math would then be the ‘sciences’, which are facilitated by the use of ‘tools’. Yet, another user argues that math and stats aren’t sciences either. If there is no clear consensus on the role of mathematics, how can we expect the GIS debate to ever be resolved?

Moreover, it is unclear to me why we must define a field as a science. The author argues that “[c]learly it does matter whether or not ‘doing GIS’ is ‘doing science,’ if for no other reason than that ‘doing science’ is often regarded as a code-phrase for academic legitimacy” (Wright, 354), but for this I come back to the math argument. I don’t want to be the one to break it to those doing graduate work in the math department that, as they are not always considered to be ‘doing science’, their academic pursuits aren’t legitimate.

Finally, who decides what is or isn’t a science? If we are waiting for the online community to settle this, we might be waiting for a very long time. Before we can embark on the GIS as a science debate, I think it would be wise to get agree on one definition of science.

-IMC

A good portion of Goodchild’s article was based on the ever-present discussion of ‘science’ vs. ‘system’ – what does the ‘s’ in GIS really stand for? As Goodchild put it: “problems of nomenclature will always be with us”. As George Gershwin put it: “Potato, potahto, let’s call the whole thing off”. In this case, I side with Gershwin.

Moving on from this seemingly endless name game,  there were other elements of the article which made me consider the history of GIS and what factors have shaped GIS into what it is (whatever it is) today. The most impactful one (in my humble opinion) would have been the internet. As someone born in the 90s, the impact of internet on a field of study was something I had never considered; the internet has been present in my life since I can remember. The impact of the internet becomes even more clear when looking into how much data I use in a single GIS project (and just how much data exists now – hello big data) the internet must have been a massive breakthrough for GIS, especially for sharing data. Goodchild touches on this by implying that the internet revolutionized both how we use GIS (as a ‘medium’ rather than a ‘butler’) and how we know GIS. For instance, it is mentioned how the general public interacts with GIS software (i.e. the famed Google Maps). Before the internet – no one in the general public would have had a clue what GIS was; even if they knew they probably wouldn’t have cared. Now the use and understanding of GIS is simple and key for anyone and everyone who checks in on Facebook.

All in all, GIS has changed drastically from 1990 to 2005 – and again since then. Not only in technology development but through the introduction of the internet. This has resulted in GIS becoming completely ingrained into our lives. Just consider that next time you turn on Siri and ask her for directions.

Until next time,

Nod

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

When reading the Wright article that outlines the debate on whether GIS should be considered a science or a tool there were some very interesting points raised. The article made me think for the very first time about the significance of the definition of GIS and what it is categorized as. I had never stopped to think that the difference between the words ‘science’ and ‘system’ could be such a debate. Additionally, this seemingly unimportant word choice has a huge impact on possible grant money, tenure, and overall legitimacy in the education and scientific community. Whilst reading the article I couldn’t help but begin to wonder where I fell on the ‘fuzzy spectrum’ of GIS classification. As a undergraduate student at McGill I found myself most drawn to the argument of GIS as a tool; as this description of GIS was one I could recognize. However, I began to wonder how my position and current status as a geography undergraduate student affected how I viewed GIS. For me, GIS was always a set of equations and methods used on a set of data to store, process, and analyze it. Furthermore, one could use these results to make some rather visually stimulating maps for projects. However, reading further into the article I realized – perhaps an individual’s positionality affects how they use and thus define GIS. For a software developer such as ESRI, GIS is perhaps seen more as the second position of GIS (as toolmaking) because they focus mostly on the coding and design of the computer program. For professors or other academics, GIS may be a science as they use core concepts (usually integrated into the software) to explore hypotheses/research. Therefore, the categorization of GIS would differ based on the person doing the categorizing.

The article – while excellent at provoking a stream of thought in my mind – was also somewhat confusing in certain parts. I found that there was a general lacking in of a clear definition of GIS. In each of the three ‘positions’ one can take on GIS, I found that Wright picked elements to his liking and molded the definition of GIS to properly fit that viewpoint while completely ignoring other key elements of the ‘system’. This brings me to my next point of contention: that Wright mentioned in the introduction that the ‘s’ in the GIS stands for ‘system’ rather than ‘science’. Unfortunately, Wright never thought to indicate to the reader what he means by Geographic Information System, how it differs from ‘science’, and how it connects to the debate. Finally, I thought that the discussion on what it means to do ‘science’ was somewhat vague, as no concrete definition of science was ever described. This part of the article felt very heavily based on philosophy (concerning the ‘isms’) and didn’t feel like it was doing what it was supposed to – which was to describe what science is.

Overall I liked the article, it made me think about what I study and how it is viewed by other people. Being as I am I figured: I’ll study what I like and not worry about what other people think – now I am not so sure. It also made me think about how I will describe what I study to my friends and family, do I focus more on the scientific aspects of GIS, the toolmaking, or the tool itself? At any rate, I think this seemingly circular argument of the word ‘science’ over ‘system’ all boils down to semantics should be left to the linguists for now.

Until next time,

Nod

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

“The ‘tool versus science’ debate has received little mention in the published literature of geography “ (p. 348), despite the attention given to GIS. A non-issue for most practicioners and researchers? Wouldn’t it fall within the scope of any ongoing debate on epistemology and methodology (philosophy of science) that researchers and the scientific community must bring to bear on any chosen method? Shall we assign the term “science” to any methodology, or is the methodology itself one component, albeit an important one, of scientific inquiry? Would a more fruitful framing of the debate involve the appropriate application of GIS-as-a-tool to the type of research in question, again, as with any chosen method? I guess I’m confused about the nature of the debate, and whether there really is much of a debate here beyond a handful of researchers beating their fists on an open door. (In a time of viral online phenomena and 1000s of hits instantaneously, the description of 64 comments among 40 people over 34 days as an intense discussion seems quaint and severely overstated.) The authors of the article appear to have their hat in the ring on the GIS-as-science end of the spectrum. I can see that the design of GIS, as with any research instrument, can be approached scientifically and empirically, but I am not aware of a theory of GIS (I readily acknowledge my ignorance here!). I tend to agree that geography or other disciplines are the science, GIS the tool.
I agree with Wright’s comment that “GIS encompasses the way in which geographical info. is collected, perceived, managed, and used” (p. 351), but this point would apply to any scientific methodology and not cause us to redefine the methodology as a science. My sense is that doing GIS is part of doing science, but not a science unto itself. The point of Goodchild (1994) that GIS can be applied to the spectrum of scientific approaches including positivist and nonpositivist approaches to me supports the view that GIS is more appropriately understood as a tool rather than a science.
Is the question driven by a now-outdated concern that because GIS labs, courses, and GIS-based research require significant investments of resources, that such investments would be more likely if given status of science unto itself? And perhaps even a desire for greater legitimacy? It seems now that the wide acceptance of GIS as a tool has helped address both these concerns. The Goodchild update “Fifteen years on” may provide some insight.
Mabu

“An Account of the Origins of Conceptual Models of Geographic Space” – Oleg McNoleg (1996)

A humorous writer under the pen name, Oleg McNoleg (of Noplace, USA), provides an amusing pseudo-history of the origin of geographic space. According to the author, the pigcells and poly-gone conceptions of space laid the groundwork for the pixel and polygon. The imaginary Tessellati and Vectules pay homage to the tessellation-like, uniformly-shaped cells of raster data and the “freeform spatial unit” of vector data (2). This narrative illustrates how raster and vector data types emerged through different needs and subsequently fulfill different spatial requirements. I am unfamiliar with the actual origins of the pixel and the polygon but I imagine they were not conceived under the same research conditions.

This may be stretching the allegorical meaning of this parody, but perhaps the narrative’s absurdity is meant to draw attention to the weird ways in which people conceptualize, use, and are dependent on space. McNoleg mentions that the Vectules’ ‘poly-gone’ industry made it “possible to sell somebody absolutely nothing and get away with it” (2). We now live in an age where mapping technologies are sold for millions or even billions of dollars e.g. Apple’s acquisition of Embark and Google’s purchase of Waze.

On a side note, I believe this article may set a record for oddest list of keywords.

– BCBD

“Geographical information science” – Michael F. Goodchild (1992)

Written in 1992, Michael F. Goodchild’s paper, “Geographical information science” is an intriguing time capsule of how one GIS researcher characterized the discipline. Now—some 22 years later—we are in an exciting position to assess how much GIS has evolved. Unfortunately, we still “tend to treat our GIS displays as if they were virtual sheets of paper,” however, I am happy to report that technologies such as Google Earth have improved the representation of the spheroid (33). Global-scale applications such as Google Earth & Maps and open-source projects such as Open Street Maps must have been unfathomable to researcher in 1992. Additionally, three-dimensional graphics are improving steadily and filling out the z-axis, previously limited by aerial stereoscopy and elevation isolines. Three-dimensional projections are even finding their place in the abovementioned Internet applications and are being incorporated in public platforms such as YouSayCity. In “Geographical Information Science Fifteen Years Later,” Goodchild acknowledges that he completely underestimated “the impact of the Internet” (2007).

The accessibility of technology is another major way breakthrough that flew under Goodchild’s radar. Goodchild, circa 1992, mentions that a “digital field geology notebook” could be a possible future technology for research (35). Goodchild believed such a technology would be niche product for academics and industry. The capability and proliferation of smart phones was an unimaginable event that would change the ways through which people utilize geographic information. I believe Goodchild would stand by naming Google Maps the “Killer App of the 21^st Century.”

On the topic of accessibility, it is interesting to point out that Goodchild addressed the ethical issue of GIS’ relationship with society. In particular he questions whether GIS will empower those already with power or if it will be used to redistribute power to those without it. It surprises me that GIS researchers were already considering this issue in 1992. I wonder what Goodchild thinks of the emergence of grassroots mapping projects.

– BCBD

“Geographical Information Science Fifteen Years Later” – Michael. F. Goodchild (2007)

Michael F. Goodchild is a staunch believer in GIS as a science. He notes how GIS researchers have been elected to the US National Academy of Sciences and the UK Royal Society, and GIS has proliferated within academic institutions. Additionally, as with other sciences, GIS is characterized by research subdivisions. Goodchild’s analysis of the state of GIS seems sound, however, I am left with the question of what his ontological quest is aiming to achieve. What is to be gained by being labelled a science and what could be lost?

Goodchild’s campaign to validate GIS as a science may have undesirable consequences. Entrenching GIS’s place in the rigid, evidence-based confines of science may cement the multifaceted “S”, which may have an exclusionary effect on the diverse GIS community. GIS researchers that exist beyond the realm of academic science are most at risk of exclusion. The way I see it, GIS could lose its creativity, flexibility, and uniqueness if the focus on scientific endeavour becomes all encompassing.

Brivio et al.’s article “Integration of remote sensing data and GIS… for mapping of flooded areas” presents the very common process of using RS data and GIS  to map flooding and flood plains. Although the article presents how the integration of RS and GIS can accurately map a flood with a concluded method  accuracy of 96%, it only looks at a single event and study site. From my experience, this is not always the case, as  integration methods, even if they are the same, often vary in accuracy from one location to another. Furthermore, event duration, intensity and geologic substates often interfere with flood area prediction from RS data and GIS, as variations can modify water location within minutes to hours. To clarify, one area may be flooded at certain points during the flood period while during other periods dry (i.e. it may transition from wet to dry to wet), which interferes with accuracy of the RS data and GIS prediction. Fundamentally, water changes how the surrounding environment reacts, modifying where floods are. As floods react to the environment, often areas become flooded for only minutes and as such, are never recognized as a flooded area, in both GIS predictions and RS data, as well as human reports (although they were flooded; but only for minutes).

To better predict flood area, TWIs (topographical wetness index) and DEMs (digital elevation models) when compared to flow paths (cost-distance matrix), may in fact, better predict flooded areas when used in conjunction with RS data then just the integration of RS data to cost-distance matrixes. In addition, more data sets and studies would further help to create a more general integration protocol and predictive area estimates for floods. To elaborate, the techniques in the article work well on the study area by may not work on other floods, therefore by adding more data from more types of floods, the technique could be adapted to other situations. The result of multiple integrations with multiple data sets would also reduce error and produce greater accuracy. The “Big” question, however that will still remain unanswered from this article is: how can we account for ecosystem and flood variability within GIS and RS data sets?

C_N_Cycles

Marceau, Guindon, Bruel, and Marois outline two major problems with the temporal model in GIS: the lack of temporal topology, and the sampling interval. The temporal interval determines the scale at which the geographic phenomenon will be studied, and consequently “may affect the perception of the pattern dynamics of the phenomenon” (p. 4). Ultimately, this leads to Marceau et al.’s explanation that some geographical changes may go undetected.

With this in mind, we can refer to the MAUP in a temporal context. Some trends will be missed depending on the borders of the interval, and false conclusions can be made if a temporal interval is too small or if the full range of years is inappropriate overall. We see this sometimes with global warming — people using global cyclical temperatures since the beginning of time to say that global warming is just another natural temperature trend because there were massive temperature fluctuations way back when. We have to be careful where we put our boundaries.

-sidewalkballet