In the so-called Information Age, it is surprising that the concept of information is imprecisely defined and almost taken for granted. Historic and recent geographic information science (GIScience) literature relies on two conflicting metaphors, often espoused by the same author in adjacent paragraphs. The metaphor of invariance, derived from telecommunications engineering, defines information as a thing to be transported without loss through a conduit. Another metaphor, originating in the utopian movements of the 19th century, locates information within a hierarchy of refinement-a stopping place on the path to convert mere data into higher forms of knowledge and perhaps to wisdom. Both metaphors rely on long-forgotten debates outside geography and preclude us from seeing that there are important social and ethical concerns in the relationship between geographic information technologies and society. We examine the conflicts between competing metaphors and propose a social theory of geographic information.
Formalist theories of knowledge that underpin GIS scholarship on integration neglect the importance and creativity of end‐users in knowledge construction. This has practical consequences for the success of large distributed databases that contribute to spatial‐data infrastructures. Spatial‐data infrastructures depend on participation at local levels, such as counties and watersheds, and they must be developed to support feedback from local users. Looking carefully at the work of scientists in a watershed in Puget Sound, Washington, USA during the salmon crisis reveals that the work of these end‐users articulates different worlds of knowledge. This view of the user is consonant with recent work in science and technology studies and research into computer‐supported cooperative work. GIS theory will be enhanced when it makes room for these users and supports their practical work.
Extending a special session held at the 2008 annual meeting of the Association of American Geographers in Boston, this commentary collection highlights elements of the critical GIS research agenda that are particularly pressing. Responding to a Progress report on critical GIS written by David O'Sullivan in 2006, these six commentaries discuss how different interpretations of 'critical' are traced through critical GIS research. Participants in the panel session discussed the need for a continued discussion of a code of ethics in GIS use in the context of ongoing efforts to alter or remake the software and its associated practices, of neo-geographies and volunteered geographies. There were continued calls for hope and practical ways to actualize this hope, and a recognition that critical GIS needs to remain relevant to the technology. This 'relevance' can be variously defined, and in doing so, researchers should consider their positioning vis-a`-vis the technology. Throughout the commentaries collected here, a question remains as to what kind of work disciplinary sub-fields such as critical GIS and GIScience perform. This is a question about language, specifically the distance that language can create among practitioners and theoreticians, both in the case of critical GIS and more broadly throughout GIScience. RésuméPour faire suite à une séance spéciale qui s'est tenue à Boston, en 2008, dans le cadre de la réunion annuelle de l'Association of American Geographers, notre collection de commentaires met en évidence les éléments du programme de recherche sur les principaux points du courant critique dirigé à l'encontre des SIG. En réponse à un rapport provisoire sur ce courant critique, rédigé par David O'Sullivan en 2006, les six commentaires expliquent comment on a retrouvé différentes interprétations de ce courant critique dans les documents de recherche. Les participants aux réunions d'experts ont signalé qu'il fallait poursuivre les discussions dans le but de proposer un code d'éthique sur l'emploi des SIG, dans le cadre des efforts déployés visant à modifier ou à adapter le logiciel et les pratiques associées, dans le domaine de la néo-géographie et de la géographie volontaire. On a lancé de nombreux appels d'espoir, on a proposé des moyens pratiques de satisfaire les attentes et on a reconnu que le courant critique doit garder une pertinence sur le plan technologique. Comme cette « pertinence » peut se définir de différentes façons, les chercheurs doivent envisager leur position sur le plan de la technologie. Parmi les commentaires recueillis, il reste à déterminer quelle sorte de travail on effectue dans les sous-domaines disciplinaires comme le courant critique sur le SIG et la science de l'information géographique. Cette question touche le langage, plus particulièrement la distance que le langage peut créer entre les spécialistes et les théoriciens, à la fois dans le cas du courant critique et, plus généralement, dans celui de la science de l'information géographique.Mots clés : courant critique sur les SIG...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.