Boundary Objects and the Social Construction of GIS Technology

Abstract

The social construction of geographical information system (GIS) technology requires two-way relationships between technology and people. GIS technology, like any other technology, is more than a tool; it connects different social groups in the construction of new localized social arrangements. We examine several instances of how GIS technology involves social negotiation by using a construct of boundary objects developed in a social constructivist framework. Much like geographic boundaries, boundary objects separate different social groups at the same time that they delineate important points of reference between them. Boundary objects stabilize relationships through the negotiation of flexible and dynamic coherences. The negotiation of differences between different groups is fundamental to the construction of GIS technology. Social-constructivist theories and the concept of boundary objects open new ways to understand the relationships between technology and people. We illustrate the application of boundary object theory through studies of the use of GIS data standards and the definition of wetlands.

Is Data Publication the Right Metaphor?

“…We suggest that there are important lessons to be learned from a closer examination of data science by practicing data scientists themselves. Science and Technology Studies (STS) based approaches, rooted in the principles of "Science in Action" (Latour, 1987), have shown to be very useful in understanding how science and informatics are actually conducted and how data are handled and perceived (e.g., Bowker & Star, 2000;Harvey & Chrisman, 1998;Parsons et al, 2011;Star & Ruhleder, 1996). We need more STS-based examinations of data science practice that considers sociotechnical and cognitive processes and examines the particular attitudes and perceptions of data stewardship and informatics that emerge from different domain and data science worldviews and ways of knowing.…”

Données géographiques et construction institutionnelle d’une région transnationale. Le SOIA comme objet-frontière ?

“…La seule recherche qui, à notre connaissance, a fait usage du concept d'objet frontière pour analyser le rôle de bases de données géographiques et de systèmes d'information géographiques dans l'agencement d'acteurs hétérogènes -en l'occurrence une infrastructure de données (ATKIS) spécifique à l'administration allemande -a été conduite par Francis Harvey et Nicholas Chrisman. Ils insistent notamment sur la capacité de ce type d'objet à intégrer des groupes d'acteurs aux identités différenciées, mais aussi à exclure d'autres groupes du système et donc à instaurer des rapports de pouvoir entre eux : « a boundary object connects the enrolled groups while excluding the opposition » et « ATKIS structures relationships and delimits organizational power to the groups who constructed the technology » ( (Harvey andChrisman, 1998a, 1683 ;1998b, 1692). …”

Questions on the Neutrality of Participative Cartography and Role Play Tools into a Land Tenure Governance Experience in Senegal

“…Suite au conflit sénégalo-mauritanien de 1989. À ce titre, N. Chrisman (2005,2007) l'a clairement démontré, ainsi que ceux qui ont utilisé les systèmes d'information géographique participatif (Harvey, 2000 ;Harvey et al, 1998) et questionné la construction sociale de tels systèmes (Sieber, 2000). Mais le savoir des acteurs n'est pas non plus sans effet sur le savoir de l'expert et invite celui-ci à modifier son outil.…”