Critical GIScience in Canada in the new millennium
NADINE SCHUURMAN
Department of Geography, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada, V5A 1S6 (e-mail: nadine@sfu.ca)
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 à la
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
The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 53, no 2 (2009) 139–144
C / Canadian Association of Geographers / L’Association canadienne des géographes
140
Nadine Schuurman
What Is Critical GIS?
And Where Did It Come From?
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 GIScience 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 GIScientists 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 1995. 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);
The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 53, no 2 (2009)
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
Critical GIScience in Canada in the new millennium
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, reThe Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 53, no 2 (2009)
141
quires 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
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.
The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 53, no 2 (2009)
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 GIScience 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
Critical GIScience in Canada in the new millennium
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 GIScience. 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
2005 ‘Ontological considerations in GIScience’ International Journal of Geographical Information Science 19,
501–536
AITKEN, S., and MICHEL, S. 1995 ‘Who contrives the “Real” in GIS?
Geographic information, planning and critical theory’ Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 22, 17–29
BELL, S., and REED, M. 2004 ‘Adapting to the Machine: integrating
GIS into qualitative research’ Cartographica 39, 55–66
BRODEUR, J., BEDARD, Y., EDWARDS, G., and MOULIN, B. 2003 ‘Revisiting the
concept of geospatial data interoperability within the scope
of human communication processes’ Transactions in GIS 7,
243–265
AGARWAL, P.
The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 53, no 2 (2009)
143
and KELLER, C. P. 2005 ‘An Analytical framework to
examine empowerment associated with participatory geographic information systems’ Cartographica 40, 91
CRAGLIA, M., and ONSRUD, H. 2003 ‘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. 2005 ‘Critical GIS’ GeoWorld 18, 22
CURRY, M. 1995 ‘GIS and the inevitability of ethical inconsistency’ in Ground Truth, ed. J. Pickles (New York: Guildford
Press), 68–87
—. 1997a ‘Digital people, digital places: rethinking privacy in
a world of geographic information’ Ethics and Behaviour 7,
253–263
—. 1997b ‘The digital individual and the private realm’ Annals of the Association of American Geographers 87, 681–
699
ELWOOD, S. 2006 ‘Critical issues in participatory GIS: deconstructions, reconstructions, and new research directions’ Transactions in GIScience 10, 693–708
—. 2008 ‘Volunteered geographic information: future research
directions motivated by critical, participatory, and feminist
GIS’ GeoJournal 72, 173–183
FRANK, A. U. 2001 ‘Tiers of ontology and consistency constraints
in geographical information systems’ International Journal
of Geographical Information Science 15, 667–678
GHOSE, R. 2007 ‘Politics of scale and networks of association in
public participation GIS’ Environment and Planning A 39,
1961–1980
GOODCHILD, M. F. 2007 ‘Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography’ GeoJournal 69, 211–221
GREGORY, D. 2000 ‘Ontology’ in The Dictionary of Human Geography 4th edition, eds. R. J. Johnston, D. Gregory, G. Pratt,
and M. Watts (Oxford, Blackwell)
GRUBER, T. 1995 ‘Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing’ International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies 43, 907–928
HARRIS, T., WEINER, D., WARNER, T., and LEVIN, R. M. 1995 ‘Pursuing social
goals through participatory GIS: redressing South Africa’s
historical political ecology’
HARVEY, F., KWAN, M.-P., and PAVLOVSKAYA, M. 2005 ‘Introduction: critical
GIS’ Cartographica 40, 1–4
HOYT, L., KHOSLA, R., and CANEPA, C. 2005 ‘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. 2003 ‘Toward a framework for research on geographic information-supported participatory
decision-making’ URISA Journal 15, 9–17
KATZ, C. 2001 ‘Vagabond capitalism and the necessity of social
reproduction’ Antipode 33, 709–728
KNIGGE, D., and COPE, M. 2006 ‘Grounded visualization: integrating
the analysis of qualitative and quantitative data through
grounded theory and visualization’ Environment and Planning A 38, 2021–2037
KRYGIER, J. B. 1998 ‘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, 271–
279
CORBETT, J. M.,
144
Nadine Schuurman
—. 2002b ‘Feminist visualization: re-envisioning GIS as a
method in feminist geographic research’ Annals of the Association of American Geographers 92, 645–661
—. 2007 ‘Affecting geospatial technologies: toward a feminist
politics of emotion’ Professional Geographer 59, 22–34
KWAN, M.-P., and DING, G. 2008 ‘Geo-narrative: extending geographic
information systems for narrative analysis in qualitative
and mixed-method research’ The Professional Geographer
60, 443–465
MATTHEWS, S. A., DETWILER, J. E., and BURTON, L. M. 2005 ‘Geo-ethnography:
coupling geographic information analysis techniques with
ethnographic methods in urban research’ Cartographica
40, 75–90
MCLAFFERTY, S. 2005 ‘Women and GIS: geospatial technologies and
feminist geographies’ Cartographica 40, 37–45
—. 2002 ‘Mapping women’s worlds: knowledge, power and
the bounds of GIS’ Gender, Place and Culture 9, 263–
269
NYERGES, T., and JANKOWSKI, P. 2002 ‘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. 2003 ‘Introduction to the special issues on access and participatory approaches in using geographic information’ URISA Journal 15, 5–7
PAVLOVSKAYA, M. 2004 ‘Other transitions: multiple economies of
Moscow households in the 1990s’ Annals of the Association
of American Geographers 94, 329–351
—. 2006 ‘Theorizing with GIS’ Environment and Planning A
38, 2003–2020
PICKLES, J. 1995 ‘Representations in an electronic age: geography,
GIS, and democracy’ in Ground Truth, ed. J. Pickles (New
York: Guildford Press), 1–30
—. 1997 ‘Tool or science? GIS, technoscience, and the theoretical turn’ Annals of the Association of American Geographers 87, 363–372
SCHUURMAN, N. 1999 ‘Critical GIS: theorizing an emerging discipline’ Cartographica 36, Monograph 53, 1–109
—. 2000 ‘Trouble in the heartland: GIS and its critics in the
1990s’ Progress in Human Geography 24, 569–590
—. 2002a ‘Reconciling social constructivism and realism in
GIS’ ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 1, 75–90
—. 2002b ‘Women and technology in geography: a cyborg
manifesto for GIS’ The Canadian Geographer 46, 258–263
—. 2004 GIS: A Short Introduction (Oxford, Blackwell)
—. 2006 ‘Formalization matters: critical GIS and ontology research’ Annals of the Association of American Geographers
96, 726–739
The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 53, no 2 (2009)
—.
2008 ‘Database ethnographies. Using social science
methodologies to enhance data analysis and interpretation’
Geography Compass 2, 1529–1548
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, 39–57
—. 2008b ‘Ontologies and the reorganization of biological
databases in the age of bioinformatics’ Bioinformatics and
Biology Insights 2, 187–200
SHEPPARD, E. 1995 ‘GIS and society: towards a research agenda’
Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 22, 5–16
—. 2001 ‘Quantitative geography: representations, practices,
and possibilities’ Environment and Planning D: Society and
Space 19, 535–554
—. 2005 ‘Knowledge production through critical GIS: genealogy and prospects’ Cartographica 40, 5–21
SHEPPARD, E., COUCLELIS, H., GRAHAM, S., HARRINGTON, J. W., and ONSRUD, H. 1999
‘Geographies of the information society’ International Journal of Geographical Information Science 13, 797–823
SIEBER, R. E. 2003 ‘Public participation geographic information
systems across borders’ The Canadian Geographer 47, 50–
61
—. 2004 ‘Rewiring for a GIS/2’ Cartographica 39, 25–40
—. 2006 ‘Public participation geographic information systems:
a literature review and framework’ Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96, 491–507
SULLIVAN, O. 2006 ‘Geographical information science: critical GIS’
Progress in Human Geography 30, 783–791
TAYLOR, P. J., and JOHNSTON, R. J. 1995 ‘GIS and Geography’ in Ground
Truth, ed. J. Pickles (New York: Guildford Press), 68–87
TIMANDER, L. M., and MCLAFFERTY, S. 1998 ‘Breast cancer in West Islip,
NY: a spatial clustering analysis with covariates’ Social Science & Medicine 46, 1623–1635
WINTER, S., and NITTLE, S. 2003 ‘Formal information modelling for
standardization in the spatial domain’ International Journal of Geographical Information Science 17, 721–741
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, 346–
362
—. 1997b ‘Reply: still hoping to turn that theoretical corner’ Annals of the Association of American Geographers 87,
346–362
—. 1997c ‘Demystifying the persistent ambiguity of GIS as
“tool” versus “science”’ Annals of the Association of American Geographers 87, 346–362
—. 1997d ‘GIS: tool or science?’ Annals of the Association of
American Geographers 87, 346–362