Critical GIScience in Canada in the new millennium

Transcription

1 Critical GIScience in Canada in the new millennium NADINE SCHUURMAN Department of Geography, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada, V5A 1S6 ( Critical GIS (CGIS) is an approach to evaluating GIS technology that draws upon multiple intellectual tool kits from geography, social theory and computing science. While its roots are in the battles between human geographers and GIScientists in the 1990s, CGIS has emerged as an independent, constructive approach to enhancing the power and appeal of GIS. CGIS is also beginning to gain acceptance as a legitimate component of the broad tent that is GIScience. This short article reviews the emergence of CGIS, discusses its influence on the discipline of GIScience and finally explores the state of CGIS in Canada. Key words: critical GIS, GIScience, feminism, social theory, qualitative methods, ontology, epistemology La science des SIG critiques au Canada durant le nouveau millénaire Fondée sur l évaluation des technologies SIG, l approche des SIG critiques dispose d un ensemble d outils intellectuels incluant la géographie, la théorie sociale et les sciences informatiques. Même si àla base cette approche se situe dans le prolongement des polémiques entre géographes humains et spécialistes des SIG au cours des années 1990, elle s inscrit aujourd hui dans un mode indépendant et constructif visant à consolider la force et l attrait des SIG. Les SIG critiques sont de plus en plus largement reconnus et valorisés par le milieu scientifique spécialisé en SIG. L objet de ce court article est de documenter le contexte d émergence des SIG critiques, d aborder la question de l influence qu ils peuvent exercer dans le champ de la science des SIG et de présenter un état des lieux des SIG critiques au Canada. Mots clés: SIG critiques, science des SIG, féminisme, théorie sociale, méthodes qualitatives, ontologie, épistémologie C / Canadian Association of Geographers / L Association canadienne des géographes

2 140 Nadine Schuurman What Is Critical GIS? AndWhereDidItComeFrom? Critical GIS (CGIS) emerges from the intersection of social theory and geographic information science (Schuurman 1999; Harvey et al. 2005; Sheppard 2005). It is an approach to evaluating GIS technology that draws upon multiple intellectual tool kits (Schuurman 2006). Critical GIScience was until recently regarded as a vague and theoretical off-shoot of an otherwise perfectly acceptable sub-discipline in Geography (Sullivan 2006). That is changing as CGIS begins to gain acceptance as a legitimate and perhaps even valuable component of the broad tent that is GIScience. This short article reviews the emergence of CGIS, discusses its influence on the discipline of GI- Science and finally explores the state of CGIS in Canada. CGIS did not materialize as a cohesive entity in the 2000s but rather descended from the struggles between human geographers and GI- Scientists in the 1990s (Schuurman 2000). The previous decade witnessed an intellectual struggle between human geographers who were wary of the increasing dominance of GIS and GIScientists who were generally surprised at the amount and virulence of resistance to their work (Wright et al. 1997a). That antagonism known colloquially as the Science Wars in Geography was based upon a suspicion that GIS was not attentive to the theoretical advances in human geography that increasingly acknowledged the roles of social theory and feminism (Curry 1995; Pickles 1995; Taylor and Johnston 1995). At the same time, critics were concerned that GIS served large corporations, public agencies and governments while eschewing the disenfranchised. The legacy of the quantitative revolution contributed to this general discomfort with GIS (Taylor and Johnston 1995). Two seminal collections characterized the unease with which human geographers viewed the emerging sub-discipline of CGIS both published in The first was a book anthology edited by John Pickles (1995), entitled Ground Truth. The second was a collection of papers in Cartography and GIS edited by Eric Sheppard. Complaints about the technology included: the masculinist overtones of the technology (e.g., emphasis on engineering rather than people); its part in a cybernetic grid of control; its role in geodemographics and marketing, a lack of attention to explicit epistemology; reliance on Cartesian perspectivalism (e.g., rational map-based analysis); and general inaccessibility to those without a high level of technical skill (Schuurman 2006). Though an initial antagonism characterized these academic conversations (Taylor and Johnston 1995; Pickles 1997; Wright et al. 1997b; Wright et al. 1997c; Wright et al. 1997d), they were ultimately productive in that they stimulated debate within geography about the role of technology and its social responsibilities. By the late 1990s, the emphasis of critiques had shifted from the ethical shortcomings of GIS to epistemology and ontology (Curry 1997a; Curry 1997b). While the occasional critique still focused on surveillance and Cartesian perspectivalism (Katz 2001), there was a general acknowledgement that technology was embedded in a larger social fabric (Sheppard et al. 1999; Sheppard 2001). A détente gradually formed, allowing CGIS to emerge from the early struggles in geography over GIS. Perhaps the most defining characteristic of CGIS today is that its ranks are primarily composed of practicing GIScientists who were influenced by early debates about GIS and its social and philosophical responsibilities. It is difficult to characterize a group as diverse as critical GIScientists. A typical critical GIS session at a major conference might include papers on topics as diverse as feminism, participatory GIS, Marxism and epistemology (Kwan 2002b; Crampton 2005; Harvey et al. 2005; Sheppard 2005; Elwood 2006; Sullivan 2006; Ghose 2007). Yet somehow there is an implicit understanding that these disparate issues fall under the same category. The invisible thread that links these issues constitutes critical GIS. In the following section, I will characterize some aspects of critical GIS. Epistemology and ontology First and foremost CGIS pays attention to the philosophical genealogy of the technology the controversial issues of epistemology and ontology. Epistemology refers broadly to the tools that we use to study the world (Schuurman 2004); it certainly influences the perspective

3 Critical GIScience in Canada in the new millennium 141 through which researchers interpret entities on the earth s surface. Ontology in a traditional interpretation refers to what something really is, its foundational essence (Gregory 2000; Agarwal 2005). Every epistemological perspective imbues an observation with different meanings, and different ontologies come into view depending on the epistemology of the GIS user. However, in GIS, we do not rely upon the philosophical interpretation of ontology. Rather the computing science interpretation developed in the 1970s is used (Gruber 1995). In this interpretation, an ontology is a fixed universe of discourse in which each data field or attribute is precisely defined as are its possible relationships to other data elements. In other words, in the information sciences, there are no foundational ontologies. Instead, each classification system, map legend or cultural context will produce a different ontology (Schuurman and Leszczynski 2008a; Schuurman and Leszczynski 2008b). In this interpretation, each unique epistemological interpretation of a set of events (e.g., refugee movement or ancient glaciation) will also result in a different ontology. Ironically, this recognition of diverse ontologies links GIS more closely to postmodernism than many other sub-disciplines of geography. I have argued elsewhere that it is this attention to the role of ontologies that has drawn mainstream technically oriented GIScientists into the realm of CGIS (Schuurman 2006). There is a deep concern in GIScience about the role of ontologies in differentiating context (e.g., the same entity in a different ontology or nomenclature has a very different meaning and implications). As a result much recent GIScience research has focused on how to incorporate multiple ontologies or contexts into GIS thus permitting more diverse and context-based representation of the human and physical world (Frank 2001; Winter and Nittle 2003; Brodeur et al. 2003). These efforts are primarily directed towards developing computational strategies to permit multiple ontologies to be included in one GIS. These efforts address many of the concerns of early critics of GIS (Aitken and Michel 1995; Pickles 1995; Sheppard 1995). Feminism and critical GIS Understanding the effectiveness of GIS and the production of truth within and through GIS, requires a specialist s knowledge. CGIS scholars have argued that it is possible to influence the products of the technology as well as interpretation of results; they see tactical ways of using existing GIS technologies to further goals for social justice and feminism in particular. Kwan argued, for instance, that critical GIS in a feminist context needs to be more reflexive in order to produce truths otherwise concealed (Kwan 2002a). Likewise, Kwan has demonstrated that it is possible to develop feminist discourses in GIS using visualization (Kwan 2002b). The technology can, in fact, be used to enrich feminist geography and practices. More recently, Kwan has gone farther and argued that emotions and feelings can and should be incorporated into GIS and that this addition would decrease the potentially oppressive effects of geographic technologies (Kwan 2007). McLafferty conducted ground-breaking epidemiological research on the spatial distribution of breast cancer and links to potential environmental co-factors (Timander and McLafferty 1998; McLafferty 2002). This research has been extended by her demonstration that GIS queries can be developed to include context and a sense of place by including links to oral histories and narratives that personalize the analysis. McLafferty has traced means by which GIS has been feminized as there is greater introspection amongst GIScientists (McLafferty 2005). Despite these promising developments, I would argue that feminist geography and GIS two very robust elements of the discipline remain ironically separate for the most part. Perhaps the movement towards qualitative GIS will provide an avenue for their merger. Incorporating qualitative methods into GIScience Perhaps one of the most valuable contributions of CGIS has been to draw attention to the potential of incorporating qualitative data and research into GIS analysis. Bell and Reed initiated this discussion by illustrating how feminist, participatory research could be incorporated into GIS analysis (Bell and Reed 2004). Pavlovskaya has theorized how GIS might be re-shaped by incorporation of qualitative data. She posits that GIS is a product of dynamic social processes rather than a static entity. In this respect, quantitative methods are linked to conservative social ideologies just as social theory and more

4 142 Nadine Schuurman qualitative methods are linked to more progressive social agenda. The qualitative/quantitative divide is thus exacerbated by political differences (Pavlovskaya 2006). This view is actually not factional but unifying as it posits that factor analysis and other methods of systematically looking for pattern are not so different from deconstruction. Certainly both support theory development; thus the line between methods is blurred (Pavlovskaya 2006). This theoretical work was incorporated earlier into an analysis of household economies in Moscow as it emerged from communism (Pavlovskaya 2004). In this study, Pavlovskaya combined qualitative survey data with GIS to model parallel economies. Likewise, Knigge and Cope (2006) developed an analytical method for using both qualitative and quantitative data in GIS that enables them to ground theory. Their paper highlights the axiom that there is no single way of representing map data. Moreover, it demonstrates that GIS can incorporate many data types from geo-referenced address data to photos and interviews. Ethnography is another important avenue through which qualitative methods are integrated into GIScience. Matthews et al. (2005) introduce a means for incorporating qualitative data gathered from ethnographic interviews into GIS. Their team incorporated life-at-a-glance calendars, photos, as well as time travel data into GIS representations. This strategy resulted in a fuller, more dimensional representation than might otherwise have been possible. Kwan and Ding (2008) focus specifically on extending current GIS to accommodate ethnographic materials including oral histories, biographies and other qualitative narratives. They employ a sophisticated approach that includes visualization capabilities and the dimension of time. This fusion of qualitative and the quantitative data and the technical means to implement them both is a hallmark of the new critical GIS with its emphasis on qualitative data. The importance of qualitative GIS is emphasized again by recent trends towards social networking and information sharing via Web 2.0. Qualitative GIS is potentially a key component of networked sociospatial knowledge disseminated through the internet (Elwood 2008). Goodchild (2007) envisages a near future in which citizens are sensors who report back from the world. Public participation GIS Public participation GIS (PPGIS) is envisioned as a flexible system, comprising integrated methods and technologies that, through the incorporation of multiple perspectives and a diversity of alternative information forms, facilitates collaborative planning efforts, supporting inclusive public participation in decision-making processes (Krygier 1998; Hoyt et al. 2005). Clearly, the goals of PPGIS are closely related to the emphases of an emerging CGIS. Yet, in many ways, the two niches of GIS have remained quite separate especially as many PPGIS experts published primarily in urban studies venues. This is perhaps shifting as eminent PPGIS researchers (Harris et al. 1995; Nyerges and Jankowski 2002; Craglia and Onsrud 2003; Jankowski and Nyerges 2003; Onsrud and Craglia 2003; Elwood 2006; Sieber 2006; Ghose 2007) begin to address issues such as feminism, qualitative methods and feminism. There remains, however, ample room for integration of these two important facets of GI- Science research. What Is the State of CGIS in Canada? At the risk of being inflammatory, CGIS is not valued as a core component of GIScience in Canada. To my knowledge, there has never been a job search with emphasis on theoretical aspects of GIS. Whilst many GIScientists have achieved eminence internationally, the preponderance of research emphasis in Canada is algorithmic and spatial analytical. There are islands of exception to this with scholars contributing at least some part of their research to critical issues (Schuurman 2000; Schuurman 2002a; Schuurman 2002b; Sieber 2003; Sieber 2004; Bell and Reed 2004; Corbett and Keller 2005; Schuurman 2008). For the most part, however, Canadian GIS scholars have eschewed this research area. I hear from UK geographers that a similar emphasis on quantitative GIScience with notable exceptions prevails. There are many possible reasons for this including possible negative stigma associated with this work based on prior previous association between CGIS and social theory as well as the relatively small size of Canadian geography. This may change, of course, in the coming decade as

5 Critical GIScience in Canada in the new millennium 143 the main impetus for CGIS comes from within the field rather than from critics. The Future of Critical GIScience: Two Scenarios GIScience is a broad tent that can accommodate many epistemological approaches. One could argue that the broader the discipline, the more likely it is to benefit from epistemological synergies. Certainly, CGIS has flourished in the United States over the past decade if not in Canada. This is partly due to the size of the GIScience community south of the border and its resulting ability to integrate multiple research tactics. There are two emerging scenarios for the future of CGIS both optimistic. The first possible picture of CGIS s future is that it increasingly attracts graduate students and scholars who are trained in both GIScience as well as qualitative techniques and social theory. In this view, CGIS might seamlessly integrate emerging qualitative and theoretical research into the technology, algorithms and underlying epistemology. A good example of this possibility is seen in the pervasive emphasis on incorporating multiple ontologies into geographic technologies. The second scenario is that CGIS as a discernable entity fades from view as researchers just consider it an implicit necessity of working GI- Science. In either case, the important work that has been achieved in ontologies, feminism and GIS, incorporating qualitative methods and PPGIS has positively affected GIScience and geography over the past decade and may in decades to come. References AGARWAL, P Ontological considerations in GIScience International Journal of Geographical Information Science 19, AITKEN, S., and MICHEL, S Who contrives the Real in GIS? Geographic information, planning and critical theory Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 22, BELL, S., and REED, M Adapting to the Machine: integrating GIS into qualitative research Cartographica 39, BRODEUR, J., BEDARD, Y., EDWARDS, G., and MOULIN, B Revisiting the concept of geospatial data interoperability within the scope of human communication processes Transactions in GIS 7, CORBETT, J. M., and KELLER, C. P An Analytical framework to examine empowerment associated with participatory geographic information systems Cartographica 40, 91 CRAGLIA, M., and ONSRUD, H Workshop on access to geographic information and participatory approaches in using geographic information: report of meeting and research agenda URISA Journal, 15, 9 15 CRAMPTON,J.W Critical GIS GeoWorld 18, 22 CURRY, M GIS and the inevitability of ethical inconsistency in Ground Truth, ed. J. Pickles (New York: Guildford Press), a Digital people, digital places: rethinking privacy in a world of geographic information Ethics and Behaviour 7, b The digital individual and the private realm Annals of the Association of American Geographers 87, ELWOOD, S Critical issues in participatory GIS: deconstructions, reconstructions, and new research directions Transactions in GIScience 10, Volunteered geographic information: future research directions motivated by critical, participatory, and feminist GIS GeoJournal 72, FRANK, A. U Tiers of ontology and consistency constraints in geographical information systems International Journal of Geographical Information Science 15, GHOSE, R Politics of scale and networks of association in public participation GIS Environment and Planning A 39, GOODCHILD, M. F Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography GeoJournal 69, GREGORY, D Ontology in The Dictionary of Human Geography 4th edition, eds. R. J. Johnston, D. Gregory, G. Pratt, and M. Watts (Oxford, Blackwell) GRUBER, T Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 43, HARRIS, T., WEINER, D., WARNER, T., and LEVIN, R. M Pursuing social goals through participatory GIS: redressing South Africa s historical political ecology HARVEY, F., KWAN, M.-P., and PAVLOVSKAYA, M Introduction: critical GIS Cartographica 40, 1 4 HOYT, L., KHOSLA, R., and CANEPA, C Leaves, pebbles, and chalk: building a public participation GIS in New Delhi, India Journal of Urban Technology 12, 1 19 JANKOWSKI, P., and NYERGES, T Toward a framework for research on geographic information-supported participatory decision-making URISA Journal 15, 9 17 KATZ, C Vagabond capitalism and the necessity of social reproduction Antipode 33, KNIGGE, D., and COPE, M Grounded visualization: integrating the analysis of qualitative and quantitative data through grounded theory and visualization Environment and Planning A 38, KRYGIER, J. B The Praxis of public participation GIS and visualization NCGIA s Empowerment, Marginalization, and Public Participation GIS, Varenius Project Meeting (Santa Barbara, CA: National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (NCGIA)) KWAN, M. 2002a Is GIS for women? Reflections on the critical discourse in the 1990s Gender, Place and Culture 9,

6 144 Nadine Schuurman. 2002b Feminist visualization: re-envisioning GIS as a method in feminist geographic research Annals of the Association of American Geographers 92, Affecting geospatial technologies: toward a feminist politics of emotion Professional Geographer 59, KWAN, M.-P., and DING, G Geo-narrative: extending geographic information systems for narrative analysis in qualitative and mixed-method research The Professional Geographer 60, MATTHEWS, S. A., DETWILER, J. E., and BURTON, L. M Geo-ethnography: coupling geographic information analysis techniques with ethnographic methods in urban research Cartographica 40, MCLAFFERTY, S Women and GIS: geospatial technologies and feminist geographies Cartographica 40, Mapping women s worlds: knowledge, power and the bounds of GIS Gender, Place and Culture 9, NYERGES, T., and JANKOWSKI, P Data-gathering strategies for social-behavioural research about participatory geographical information system use International Journal of Geographical Information Science 16, 1 22 ONSRUD, H., and CRAGLIA, M Introduction to the special issues on access and participatory approaches in using geographic information URISA Journal 15, 5 7 PAVLOVSKAYA, M Other transitions: multiple economies of Moscow households in the 1990s Annals of the Association of American Geographers 94, Theorizing with GIS Environment and Planning A 38, PICKLES, J Representations in an electronic age: geography, GIS, and democracy in Ground Truth, ed. J. Pickles (New York: Guildford Press), Tool or science? GIS, technoscience, and the theoretical turn Annals of the Association of American Geographers 87, SCHUURMAN, N Critical GIS: theorizing an emerging discipline Cartographica 36, Monograph 53, Trouble in the heartland: GIS and its critics in the 1990s Progress in Human Geography 24, a Reconciling social constructivism and realism in GIS ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 1, b Women and technology in geography: a cyborg manifesto for GIS The Canadian Geographer 46, GIS: A Short Introduction (Oxford, Blackwell) Formalization matters: critical GIS and ontology research Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96, Database ethnographies. Using social science methodologies to enhance data analysis and interpretation Geography Compass 2, SCHUURMAN, N., and LESZCZYNSKI, A. 2008a A method to map heterogeneity between near but non-equivalent semantic attributes in multiple health data registries Health Informatics Journal 14, b Ontologies and the reorganization of biological databases in the age of bioinformatics Bioinformatics and Biology Insights 2, SHEPPARD, E GIS and society: towards a research agenda Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 22, Quantitative geography: representations, practices, and possibilities Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 19, Knowledge production through critical GIS: genealogy and prospects Cartographica 40, 5 21 SHEPPARD, E., COUCLELIS, H., GRAHAM, S., HARRINGTON, J. W., and ONSRUD, H Geographies of the information society International Journal of Geographical Information Science 13, SIEBER, R. E Public participation geographic information systems across borders The Canadian Geographer 47, Rewiring for a GIS/2 Cartographica 39, Public participation geographic information systems: a literature review and framework Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96, SULLIVAN, O Geographical information science: critical GIS Progress in Human Geography 30, TAYLOR, P. J., and JOHNSTON, R. J GIS and Geography in Ground Truth, ed. J. Pickles (New York: Guildford Press), TIMANDER, L. M., and MCLAFFERTY, S Breast cancer in West Islip, NY: a spatial clustering analysis with covariates Social Science & Medicine 46, WINTER, S., and NITTLE, S Formal information modelling for standardization in the spatial domain International Journal of Geographical Information Science 17, WRIGHT, D. J., GOODCHILD, M. F., and PROCTOR, J. 1997a Demystifying the persistent ambiguity of GIS as tool versus science Annals of the Association of American Geographers 87, b Reply: still hoping to turn that theoretical corner Annals of the Association of American Geographers 87, c Demystifying the persistent ambiguity of GIS as tool versus science Annals of the Association of American Geographers 87, d GIS: tool or science? Annals of the Association of American Geographers 87,