Department of Geography
Indiana State University
My research interests since 1989 have emphasized the implementation of geographic information systems. I have discussed some of the issues outlined in your Call for Participation in my publications, which include _Managing_GIS_ (co-authored with Jeffrey Pinto). Specifically, my research has addressed themes under two separate conceptual issues of your Call for Participation: (2) how the proliferation of GIS data bases and differential access to spatial data bases influences the abilities of different social groups to utilize information for their own empowerment and (4) the possibilities and limitations of using GIS as a participatory conflict resolution tool.
For example, "GIS in a Democratic Society" (Chapter 11 in _Managing_GIS_ ) suggests that GIS in a democracy presents both opportunities and problems to citizens. As the technology becomes more powerful, user friendly, and affordable, it becomes more readily available to a wider range of individuals and interest groups than ever before. This increased availability of GIS technology is valuable in a democracy because it holds the promise of including more voices in important policy debates at all levels of government. As with any technology, problems (technical, social, and legal) are bound to arise as the technology comes into wider use. Initially, the concentration of knowledge about GISs in the hands of technical experts, rather than policy experts, is cause for concern. Ultimately, ensuring that policy experts gain knowledge about the capabilities and limitations of GIS is equally important. Just as important, however, is assuring that ordinary people with a good knowledge and understanding of their problems also have a role in making policy that affects them.
Another publication (The Hidden GIS Technocracy, which appeared in _Cartography_and_GIS_, vol. 22, no. 1, 1995, pp. 78-83), begins with the premise that the proliferation of geographic information systems, especially those for PCs, seems to be a democratizing, counter-technocracy trend, but goes hand-in-hand with a centralization of the geographic modeling programming that underpins the GIS. These paradoxical trends give the illusion of growing democratization of GIS technology, while in reality, there is a growing danger of the rise of a hidden GIS technocracy, owing primarily to the lack of recognition that such a technocracy exists. While the decentralization of the technology is likely to prevent any major widespread cataclysms, individual organizations implementing a GIS may experience problems caused by the implementation of geographic modeling programs that may be inappropriate to their needs. The remedy for such problems begins with awareness of the hidden technocracy and of the potential for trouble. One way to increase awareness is to promote the use of lineage information for the geographical models embedded in geographic information systems in the same way that the GIS community has pressed for lineage information on databases.
I am currently working on a research project funded under the "Research Planning Grant" program of the National Science Foundation. My project, entitled "Spatial Conflict in the Information Age," explores the claim made by some advocates of GIS that the systems can help to minimize conflicts over land use by providing more and better (more accurate) information about the subject of the conflict. I argue that this claim overlooks an important source of conflict: the underlying value differences represented by conflicting parties. Furthermore, I hypothesize that GIS will tend initially to increase, rather than decrease, conflict, since geographic information and analyses made possible by GIS can be used selectively by conflicting parties to support their positions. However, I view this conflict as a positive feature in a democracy, because it represents open dialogue concerning differences of opinion that must be fully explored as a precondition for acceptable public policy resolution.
The logic behind my suggestion that GIS will tend to increase conflict lies in research that identifies two sources of conflict: disagreement on facts (cognitive conflict) and disagreement regarding values (interest conflict). While GIS can influence facts in a particular conflict, by adding facts or presenting facts in a variety of ways, there is no reason to expect that the technology alone can or will do anything to mesh competing values. Value conflict, therefore will remain, regardless of the amount of information gathered to resolve it. At the same time, the greater quantity of information that GIS will make possible will very likely increase the number of "facts" that can then become the basis for further conflict.
This situation, however, points to another trend: the growing
use of GIS in the public policy arena. Public officials have used
GIS both to allocate resources as well as to examine specific
public policies. In short, GIS has become embedded in both the
process and outcomes of public policy. This trend warrants
attention, and suggests a growing need to examine the
relationship between public policy processes and outcomes, and to
assess the ability of GIS to serve as a tool in developing public
policies whose processes and outcomes meet with general public
approval. Underlying this exploration is a recognition that even
when citizens agree on specific public policy processes, the
resulting outcomes may not be as satisfactory as anticipated.
Within this context, the GIS is an especially valuable tool
because of its potential to explore a variety of policy processes
along with their outcomes in short time. Therefore, while (as
suggested above) the proliferation of geographic information
systems may increase conflict, the technology also provides means
by which conflicting parties may seek common ground, and find a
way to resolve their conflict.
Paper:The Hidden GIS Technocracy
Paper: Spatial Conflicts in the Information Age