 [BACK] |
 [HOME] |
NCGIA Initiative 19, ‘The Social Implications of How People, Space, and Environment are Represented in GIS’, was conceived during the November 1993 Friday Harbor NCGIA sponsored meeting on ‘Geographic Information and Society.’ The meeting was organized by Nick Chrisman, John Pickles, Tom Poiker, Eric Sheppard and others, at a time when there was a need to bring together ‘GIS practitioners’ and ‘social theorists.’ The meeting was held in a positive and amicable environment and has subsequently laid the basis for the I-19 proposal to the NCGIA. Fourteen attendees at the Friday Harbor meeting were present at the I-19 specialist meeting.
Contemporaneously with the organization of I-19 came the publication of two important ‘GIS and Society’ publications: Ground Truth: The Social Implications of Geographic Information Systems, edited by John Pickles; and a special issue of the journal Cartography and GIS (CAGIS) which arose out of the Friday Harbor meeting and was edited by Eric Sheppard and Tom Poiker. Both these publications stimulated important debate which provided the conceptual core of the I-19 Proposal to the NCGIA.
The I-19 specialist meeting was organized as a workshop with a combination of group plenary sessions and smaller focus group sessions. The workshop began with discussions around I-19 conceptual issues and then shifted to potential research focus areas. Emphasis was placed not on formal presentations but on plenary and small group discussion. Rapporteurs reported back to the main plenary sessions from break-out sessions, and by regularly changing the composition of the small groups, maximum interaction was ensured. Toward the end of the workshop, the format became less structured to allow for groups to develop around specific research projects.
During the opening plenary session, it was proposed that GIS represented a set of social practices and institutions embedded within a particular discourse. In this respect the origins and epistemologies of GIS; the political economy of information and information access; the nature of GIS representations; the relations between spatial information types; and the ethics of information, were all identified as essential elements for ‘GIS and Society’ discussion and debate. GISs are thus institutionalized within systems of data and situated within particular economic, political and legal structures. They can, therefore, be considered as spatial data institutions. To further focus the discussion, three broad I-19 ‘GIS and Society’ conceptual issues and sets of related questions were identified.
If GIS is concerned with an abstraction of the real world and with its representation in digital form, then what are the critical issues regarding inclusion or exclusion of various forms of knowledge? The concern here is with how the world has been represented in various systems of GIS and geographic information and how these systems have evolved and been fashioned over time. What, for example, have been the implications for the development of GIS arising from circumstantial decisions made early in the evolution of GIS? What limitations or opportunities for GIS arose as a result of these early decisions? What are the silences in our representations in GIS and what areas of knowledge or forms of knowledge have been privileged and excluded over others as a result of the evolutionary tract that GIS has taken? What power relations in society are embedded within existing GIS epistemologies?
These issues were again best captured in a series of questions. How do institutions that produce and disseminate spatial information impact patterns of spatial information access and use? Is access to geographical information socially differentiated and if so in what way? Who has privileged access to spatial data and what happens to non- standardized forms of spatial information in a GIS? How do the socio- economic and political positions of spatial data institutions impact the ways that GISs are built and used? Are public sector applications fundamentally different than private sector applications? Linked to these questions are embedded concerns for personal privacy and intrusion and the use of closed and open systems of proprietorial data and knowledge.
Arising from an understanding of social impacts on existing uses of GIS is a concern to address these issues and consider how ‘alternative’ forms of GIS production, use, access, and representation, could be pursued? Could a ‘bottom-up’ GIS be developed successfully and what might it comprise? How can community participation be more fully incorporated into a GIS and to what extent would such participation serve to legitimize conventional top-down decision- making? What policy impacts might arise for GIS containing conflicting information associated with the inclusion of multiple realities of space? What are the potential implications for the inclusion of ambiguous or even contradictory data? What are the implications for using GIS for decision-making and conflict resolution, particularly if the GIS has to contend with non-commensurate value systems. Equally important are the implications arising from a spatial information system which is broadly available to all user groups rather than to a segment of society as tends to be the case currently.
These three broad ‘GIS and Society’ issues set the tone for subsequent workshop discussion. Further debate ensued as to how these questions and issues might be pursued and under what discursive frameworks. The workshop schedule thus focused on:
I-19 conceptual themes were discussed within four small groups. Later, these groups reconvened in plenary session and reported back. Conceptual issue # 1 from the original proposal questioned:
In what ways have particular logic and visualization techniques, value systems, forms of reasoning, and ways of understanding the world been incorporated into existing GIS techniques, and in what ways have alternative forms of representation been filtered out?
This group began with a discussion of how particular logics have been excluded from GIS; how they might be included in GIS; and how GIS has been linked to the enlightenment project of modern cartography. In discussing why a particular visualization system has become privileged, two perspectives emerged:
(1) GIS represents a powerful analytical tool that produces useful results; and
(2) GIS is a Cartesian model of space which excludes certain forms of representation.
Critical questions raised in Group A discussion included:
In subsequent discussion, it was suggested that one way of enriching GIS is to think of it as a communication device that currently has a very limited range of symbols. In this way opportunities should be sought to broaden the ‘vocabulary’ of GIS and increase the choices of metaphors available.
This group focused on the various ways of knowing the world including gestalt, iconographic, and allegorical ways of knowing. At present these ways of knowing are missing from GIS. A distinction was made between GIS1, or (most) current GIS practice, and GIS2 which might include forms of knowledge previously excluded from GIS1 while also broadening the societal base of GIS use. In distinguishing between what exists now, and what might be in the future, it was recognized that GIS1 came out of the scientific tradition and adopted the practices of cartography.
On an ontological level, different world views give rise to a variety of visualizations and representations. There is an important distinction to be made between representation and interpretation as well as between representation and communication. At issue, therefore, is much more than viewing GIS solely as a representational system. It is necessary to be precise about what is implied by the terms GIS1 and GIS2. There are different levels of interpretation including the data itself; its use; specific applications; and institutional practices and settings. From this discussion, critical questions raised within Group B included:
GIS representation needs to be linked to traditions in geography, both old and new. What dimensions of reality cannot be captured adequately by a GIS? What limitations, if any, have been imposed by vendors? In evaluating GIS and Society issues it is important to be reflective and self-critical. There was also discussion of how GIS grew out of map logic.
This group agreed that there are biases inherent in GIS and that GIS is a product of certain kinds of social practices. In the former, these biases come from early decisions made in the evolution of the technology and numerous unacknowledged presuppositions; for example, the nature of objects, assumptions about measurement, the importance of overlays, and how space is conceptualized. There is a need to examine influential early GIS applications such as CGIS, with its focus on land evaluation techniques. Sources of bias also include managerial attitudes and the treatment of nature as a resource for human consumption.
In the latter case, ways of knowing are usually packaged around the managerial and problem solving portion of GIS. There is a need to look equally at issues of explanation rather than just problem solving. Cultural differences in GIS practice were raised and comparison made between the U.S., where discussions go on concurrently with the GIS construction, and in Germany, where these discussions tend to be held before GIS production begins.
After each group presented the results of their deliberations, the plenary session discussion focused on five issues:
The afternoon sessions for the first day were structured in the same way as those in the morning. Two further conceptual issues from the original proposal provided the focus:
How has the proliferation and dissemination of databases associated with GIS, as well as the differentiated access to spatial databases, influenced the ability of different social groups to utilize information for their own empowerment?
How can the knowledge, needs, desires and hopes of marginalized social groups be adequately represented as input to a decision-making process, and what are the possibilities and limitations of GIS as a way of encoding and using such representations?
Group A began by clarifying what was meant by ‘access to data’. Access is linked to skill and knowledge. Individuals may have access to data, but lack interpretive skills. If public and private data providers have the opportunity to share data, will they? And when data is accessed, what are the capabilities and possibilities for empowerment? Is the data accessing people rather than people accessing data? The World Wide Web provides one model of a dynamic, flexible, and available data provider. Is GIS developing ‘Web envy’? Can the WWW be the GIS2 of the future? If technology could broaden access to information, will people share?
Discussion began with the following challenge: has GIS influenced any decision made and, if so, how? It was suggested that GIS reifies the ecological fallacy and that the success or failure of data/information in GIS is indeed related to access to data and expertise.
The relationship between information and power was raised in the context of the potentiality of commercial firms marginalizing groups in terms of access to information. Privacy is a critical GIS and Society issue. There is a need for basic information and a need for non- hegemonic representation of geographic information. Could GIS2 be a communication device in this instance?
Consideration focused on current GIS being more space-based than place-based. Discussion explored the development of a Place Information System as being less marginalizing. The flavor of a place is in continual flux and GIS could contribute towards a geography of place and space
In the plenary and small group discussions of the above conceptual issues, researchable themes began to emerge. The following seven topical areas constitute the core of the ‘GIS and Society’ research menu established at the workshop.
Also emerging from the group discussions and subsequent plenary sessions were the beginnings of more specific research projects which encapsulated aspects of the GIS and Society debate. Summaries of small group research theme meetings were as follows.
The primary focus of discussion was about testing the frontiers of GIS production and use. In seeking to develop a more inclusive and participatory GIS, a starting point could be to ask what aspects of existing GIS should be retained and what aspects should be excluded? Furthermore, there is a need to identify the tensions between what is desirable and what is feasible? A project in this area would need to explore new ways of molding human interactions. There is also a need to look into GIS-Internet applications.
An initiative to identify a set of methods and instruments should become a focus of study in which the GIS became oriented more toward representation, as much as toward the ‘representers’ themselves. In this respect, knowledge construction would involve moving away from the map as metaphor. Emphasis would be placed upon the role of participants in the GIS; the (equal) representation of diverse views; the integration of system components within a single interface; and the representation of the history of its own development, including a temporal element. Several significant problem areas and questions were identified for investigation as to the extent to which GIS2 would be built upon GIS1; the role of community ‘Freenets’ and the World Wide Web; how narrative could be incorporated; the development of new methods for negotiated outcomes; how individual interactions might be modeled and preserved within the system; and how a variety of knowledge and representation from participant groups might be included.
A comparative study of GIS was proposed which would place GIS within the context of the enlightenment project. How has GIS been institutionalized and what ways of knowing have been incorporated? What were the roads not taken? There is a need for a deep history of GIS which should include an understanding of GIS as a contemporary institution; the histories and intellectual biographies of the principal people involved in GIS development; a cultural geography of GIS; and investigation into the early common assumptions of the GIS creators such as their cultural background, for example. There is also a need for a comparative international study of how planners use GIS.
A critical history of GIS was thus proposed involving archival research and biographical interviews. The methodology was to be mindful of both structure and agency. Three foci were identified for study: 1) identify and examine the institutional and intellectual cradles of GIS; 2) identify key processes in the evolution of GIS and the critical junctures in the development of the technology; and 3) identify the key individuals involved in the development of GIS.
Merging environmental justice and political ecology provides a unique conceptual framework for understanding existing and alternative GIS uses in the broad areas of environmental justice and equity. There is a need to examine environmental equity and justice issues in a spatial context while also considering the various models and methods that are currently available and in use. There are critical issues about scale, the types and quality of available databases as well as important political- economic considerations about existing GIS uses and representations of space and nature.
There are a number of critical research questions, including:
Three teams - from the Universities of Minnesota, South Carolina, and West Virginia - will provide a base for collaborative case studies to examine environmental risk, local communities and GIS. A comparative assessment was proposed for the three states, especially with regard to positional accuracy and how local communities are involved and/or marginalized from existing GIS-based efforts. This project is concerned with how GIS is being used to monitor, represent, and model real and potential toxic releases. Other concerns include: how scale and representation influence the generation of risksheds and their perception by people; how toxic hazards impact the quality of life in places subjected to releases and how residents mitigate them; and how data flow and representation influence local response to toxic sites? This project is also concerned with alternative community-based GIS development.
This research theme focused on how local knowledge and multiple realities of space and environment at the level of the ‘community’ could be incorporated within GIS. This raises some questions concerning the potential role of academics in community work; the extent to which current spatial data institutions impose constraints on successful community scale applications; and, the potential role of community groups and non-profit organizations. Specific questions which emerged from this group discussion include:
How do existing GISs impact specific communities? In what ways might community social differentiation influence the effective development and use of a GIS? What kinds of questions, needs, and problems do communities have and how might spatial information and GIS analysis help? What is the relationship between academics/GIS providers and specific community needs? How might academic activism help communities and what are the possible consequences of mapping data in different ways?
We are a society with increasing quantities of data at multiple levels of availability. Data availability is increasingly accepted and expected. As a result there is an increasing capability for technological surveillance. Are there ways to ameliorate concerns about surveillance and the role of GIS? How might fair information standards be imposed or included in a GIS? How might these issues of privacy be pursued in commercial and government institutions? Three sets of questions would guide this research area:
Are there techniques that might diminish problems of slanderous labeling and stigmatization? Are there technological fixes and can there be a resolution to these problems even in a non-technological way?
To what extent is it possible to enforce fair information standards in GIS? (Geographic data often breaks down an individual’s control on data.)
How do we resolve questions of privacy at the intersection of government and commercial data, as the boundaries between government and commercial data become increasingly blurred?
Two potential research foci were identified: (1) the lack of participation of women in the GIS production process (which some participants challenged); and (2) the extent to which womens’ space was being represented and/or marginalized in existing GISs. The initial concern raises questions about whether inherent mechanisms in the industry exclude women from entering or performing on a par with males and whether the possible deskilling of the technology would generate increased female employment. A feminist critique of the GIS production process was thus proposed. Issues surrounding the representation of gender and sexuality (as well as class, race and ethnicity, and other types of identity) are, of course, fundamental ‘GIS and Society’ research concerns.
Feminist critiques of science are also important. Relevant questions include:
A number of issues previously discussed were contextualized at the global scale as to how GIS was being utilized to represent the human dimension of global environmental change. Major questions include:
What kinds of geographic information and GIS applications are being prioritized in current human dimensions of environmental change research?
What kinds of particular descriptive, explanatory, and evaluative features characterize the representation of global environmental change implicated in these GI(S) efforts, and what kinds are de-emphasized or excluded?
What are the socio-political and environmental implications of global environmental change policy formulation and its implementation at the international, national, and regional scales?
How might problems suggested in the above be addressed in human dimension of environmental change research?
The above research foci provide the essential elements of a research agenda upon which individuals and groups can build. Initiative 19 now becomes an umbrella for the implementation of research and the continued networking of individuals and groups. The Public Participation GIS workshop held in Maine subsequent to the I19 specialist meeting is an important example of the latter. In addition to these activities, I19 will:
[BACK] |
[HOME] |