Negotiating GIS and Social Theory in Population Geography

Abstract

Population researchers are increasingly giving attention to how geographic information systems (GIS)‐based analytical techniques can answer questions about the spatial aspects of demographic processes. This broader turn toward spatial demography, however, has occurred concurrently with concerns within population geography about the sub‐discipline’s position within human geography as it turns toward critical social theory. These developments create distinct tensions for population geographers who seek to engage with the growing interest in GIS and spatial analysis outside of geography, and remain relevant within an increasingly theoretical human geography. This article evaluates the challenges in incorporating insights from critical social theory into spatial demographic research, with attention to issues such as the social construction of space and scale and the modifiable areal unit problem (MAUP). The article then assesses the potential of qualitative GIS as a methodological resolution to these challenges, and considers the prospects for theoretically informed spatial demographic research in population geography.

Maps and cartography: Progress in international critical cartography/GIS research

“…Wood [6] pointed out that even "neutral" things like topographic maps or road maps may be political: the silence and omission of maps (such as any non-motorized lanes or bicycle lanes, or any information about public transport) represent the privileges of cars to other commuting modes, so it is a deliberate (and political) choice. In spatial population statistics, the use of regions that follow the boundaries defined by the state to summarize data can "see" the population phenomenon, but it does not necessarily reflect the characteristics of the population under study [56] , but strengthens the perspective of the state, causing a typical modifiable area unit problem (MAUP) [57] , so that some social problems may be amplified, or covered up [56,58] , etc.…”

Crossing the qualitative-quantitative chasm I

“…With this first in a series of three reports we begin an entirely new progress report, one set to cover qualitative and quantitative research methods together, along with the methodologies that ground them and the approaches that seek to integrate them. We write together in an effort to bury the qualitative-quantitative divide in our discipline (and in the social sciences and humanities more broadly) and we contend that this divide has hindered cooperation, collaboration, and constructive engagement of diversity (Curtis and Riva, 2010; Walker, 2010). In this first report we focus on work that seeks to mix methods and/or methodologies, as well as on work that seeks to transcend the differences between methods and methodologies.…”