Surfaces: tacit knowledge, formal language, and metaphor at the Harvard Lab for Computer Graphics and Spatial Analysis

Abstract

The Harvard Lab for Computer and Spatial Analysis was one of several sites in the early development of GIS where seminal innovations in the processing and display of geographically referenced data took place. An early area of concern at the lab were the mathematical and technical problems associated with the modelling of 'surfaces'. This term, 'surface', came to take on new and sometimes abstract meanings. The language used to describe 'surfaces' was rooted in tacit knowledge and more formal mathematics. The mixing of diOE erent forms of language, both verbal and written, allowed the passing of abstract and sometimes di cult meanings. It may be that universal history is the history of a handful of metaphors . .. It may be that universal history is the history of the diOE erent intonations given a handful of metaphors (Borges 1964, p. 189 and 192).

Social Constructions of GIS in China's Changing Urban Governance: The Case of Shenzhen

“…One key concern has been to unravel and question the dominant ways of GIS development and use and the associated geographic knowledge production (e.g., Kwan 2002;Craig, Harris, and Weiner 2002;Goodchild 2006;Elwood 2006;Gilbert and Masucci 2006;Ghose 2007). In particular, various studies have examined the intellectual history of GIS-related technologies, showing the path-dependent nature of GIS technological development processes at key sites and at critical moments shaped by key individuals, technical constraints, disciplinary traditions, and broader social forces (see Sheppard 2005;Chrisman 1988;Harvey 1998;Foresman 1998;Schuurman 1999;McHaffie 2000;Harvey and Chrisman 2004). Some of these studies adopt a historiographical approach; for example, Timothy Foresman's (1998) edition of works by pioneering GIS practitioners illustrates the rich milieu of technical and social agents (including people, policies, and technologies) that forged the current GIS community.…”

Thinking Outside the Box: Engaging Critical Geographic Information Systems Theory, Practice and Politics in Human Geography

“…Viewing GIS as in part constituted by its data models, for example, illustrates how different models are based on different ontological understandings of space, with implications for the ways of knowing that are possible with each (Schuurman 1999, 2004). Viewing GIS as an assemblage of practices enables socio‐historical analyses of how it has been produced by the private, public, and academic sectors (McHaffie 2000; Stiles 2009); by the research norms and dominant spatial models and metaphors of cartography, geography, and other disciplines (Poore and Chrisman 2006); as well as by the representational, analytical, and political practices of its users (Elwood 2009a,b; Schuurman 2002b). Viewing GIS as technology, methodology, and social practice highlights the fact that it is multiply constituted and therefore open for critical reconstruction through a wide range of interventions (Elwood and Cope 2009).…”

“…It examines the implications of GIS use for participation and power in social and political processes where the technology is used (Elwood 2002; Weiner and Harris 2003). Critical GIS scholars have studied the histories of GIS, to understand the sorts of knowledge politics it may advance (Chrisman 2006; McHaffie 2000). And critical GIS has a longstanding emancipatory commitment, evident in efforts to facilitate more equitable access to geographic data and technologies, and to explore whether and how GIS might be put to work in the service of social change (Craig et al.…”

Knowledge Production through Critical GIS: Genealogy and Prospects

“…This research has closely examined processes of technological development at key sites and moments (bifurcation points) when paths of future development were set, and has speculated on the 'paths not taken'; the alternative designs that did not get off the ground to shape the developmental path of mainstream GIS. The roles of key individuals, technical barriers, disciplinary traditions and broader social forces in shaping paths of development have been analyzed (Chrisman, 1987;Curry, 1998;Harvey, 1998;Cloud & Clarke, 1999;Schuurman, 1999;McHaffie, 2000;Schuurman, 2001).…”