Literature review of sociotechnical theory and Data Communities:
Justification for this research project
A suitable theoretical framework to uncover complexities in the ecology of GIS work
must equitably accommodate the social and technical elements involved.
Chrisman’s rings and Kling’s organizational values embedded in practices and
information products.
Many qualities of GIS bridge the social and technical divide.
List some of the social or perceived social qualities of GIS
GIS champion (
Abstraction (Nyerges)
Ontology / World view
Interorganizational cooperation, collaboration and the like
Data transfer
Suitability for use
Practice
System design that meets social and organizational needs.
Technology
Technical
Data transfer
Suitability for use
Practice
…ethnography produced a radically reformulated understanding of the technicians’ job
(Orr, 1990, 1996, 1998) from C:\phd\papers\Strati\ practice_based_learning_2007.pdf
Develop new insight into site-specific social and technical contributions to knowledge
production with GIS.
FOX 2000:
Both (Lave and Wenger) and (Brown and Duguid) deal with communities
of practice situated in social and organizational context. But for (Lave 1993) the
question of ‘context’ is dealt with differently by alternative social theories, methods
and perspectives. She distinguishes two broad versions of context. One view sees
context as a relatively stable structure of macro social relations, between macro social
actors, classes, genders, etc., providing the stage on which a particular COP may be
studied. Power relations in the wider social fabric may be found in microcosm within,
or impinging upon, a specific community of practice. Such a view includes activity
theory and critical theory, both derived from Marxist practice theory ((Lave 1993): 17-9;
see (Fox 1997) for a further discussion). On the other hand, a broadly
phenomenological, social constructionist view of context sees it as an emergent
property of action itself. Action produces its own context (Chaiklin and Lave 1993).
Within
this broad view of context we find, interactionist, ethnomethodological and
conversation analytic approaches to practice.
GIS is made up of technical, social and, practice elements that require a suitable
theoretical approach for simultaneous investigation. This section explores how these
characteristics are manifest in GIS, past efforts to address them and the prospect of
several alternative approaches from outside the discipline.
Debate over the definition of GIS is evidence that concise expression of its diverse
makeup is difficult. Process and system definitions that emphasized input, processing,
output and representation accompanied early development of GIS (Calkins and
Tomlinson 1977; Marble 1984) along with others that emphasized content and analysis
(Devine and Field 1986; Star and Estes 1990). (Chrisman 1987) challenged these largely
technical perspectives with the assertion that GIS are situated inside social environments.
He pursued this line of reason and proposed a new definition of GIS in 1997:
“A Geographic Information System (GIS) can be defined as:
The organized activity by which people
 measure aspects of geographic phenomena and processes;
 represent these measurements, usually in the form of a computer database, to
emphasize spatial themes, entities, and relationships;
 operate upon these representations to produce more measurements and to
discover new relationships by integrating disparate sources; and
 transform these representations to conform to other frameworks of entities and
relationships.
These activities reflect the larger context (institutions and cultures) in which these
people carry out their work. In turn, the GIS may influence these structures.”
(Chrisman 1997) p.5
Inherent in GIS implementation is a need to evaluate information needs, system
suitability, expected user skills, and organizational constitution.
Society: GISoc – What prospects or direction on society does it offer aside from
critique? Check Nadine and (Sheppard 1995) historical views.
(Sieber 2006)>>>
Practice: According to (Sheppard 1995) p15), GISoc was concerned with the social theory of
GIS; whereas PPGIS was considered ‘‘GIS in practice.’’ This framing of PPGIS situated the
legitimate form of intellectual engagement within GISoc and with academicians.
(Jankowski and Nyerges 2003) p10
“…open and transparent access to spatially enabled data and information handling tools for
people interested in place-based problem solving and decision-making in a specific socio-political
context.”
GIS implementation: site specific
Interoperating GIS: collections of site specific implementation that exhibit shared needs
(Goodchild 1999)
(Onsrud and Rushton 1995)
The challenge is to better address the larger intraorganizational, interorganizational
and extraorganizational environment and ecology of GIS implementation and
operation.
In practice there are several tracks of GIS research that are sensitive to social or
organizational setting. Information needs analyses, PPGIS, Critical GIS,
GIS implementation – responsive to evaluation of information needs, finance, practices,
training, maintenance.
PPGIS
How have efforts to study these been addressed?
PPGIS where the GIS are situated in direct relationship with members of a community to
meet specific needs.
Consider how these engage with measurement and analysis.
Are PPGIS examples of embedded technology or facilitated affordances?
GIS design – consideration and sensitivity that the system fits with the needs identified
This is a ‘front loaded’ approach and does not fully appreciate dynamic of the system
over time.
GIS implementation/evaluation
Snapshot in time and often limited to intraorganizational parameters
From (Sieber 2006):
This derives from work on GIS implementation in local governments in the United
States, which has roots in organizational theory (e.g., see Nedovic-Budic 1998).
‘‘Implementation’’ is shorthand for the range of decisions made internally by an
organization to acquire, install, implement, and maintain GIS,
Renee has a laundry list of PPGIS/PGIS facets that are ecologically related. Which are
intraorg, interorg, or extraorg? Is there any respect for multiple ontologies?
“The coproduction of PPGIS plays out through four themes: place and people, technology
and data, process, and outcome and evaluation.”
Focus is on PPGIS - singular.
Data access means what?
Does not treat details of data transfer specifically except to notice data is situated, not
universally applicable and subject to actors to enable transfer.
Suitability for use?
Endless reiteration of multiple extraorganizational factors as factors – no means to be
proactive in situated actions.
In her conclusion (p 503):
To explicate the construction, the article then offered a framework of PPGIS consisting of
four key themes: place and people, technology and data, process, and outcome and
evaluation.
…Then…
With few exceptions (e.g., Davis and Martin 1999; Sawicki and Peterman 2002), largegeographic scale or cross-comparative research has yet to be conducted.
…and…
A full framing of PPGIS may include the most sophisticated applications; it also will need to
encompass the paper map and pencil, coupled with meaningful participation that is fully
cognizant of situational influences and diverse goals.
See:
Elwood, S., and R. Ghose. 2001 (published 2004). PPGIS in community development planning:
Framing the organizational context. Cartographica 38 (3&4): 19–34.
(Elwood 2006)
“But this body of research has been less focused on how participation in GIS-based knowledge production is
negotiated in a range of everyday practices in PPGIS projects. In so doing, it has not offered detailed
accounts of how participation and representation are negotiated in the grounded decisions and practices of
PPGIS research, even while providing a wealth of practical strategies for conducting effective and
sustainable PPGIS initiatives.”
“Throughout, the literature emphasizes the extent to which these and other aspects of PPGIS initiatives are
context dependent, identifying a host of factors that shape their effectiveness, sustainability, and
participatory practices. Specifically, researchers note the influence of organizational capacities for
implementing technologies (Sieber 2000), institutional resources and networks that support PPGIS
development (Ghose and Huxhold 2002; Elwood and Ghose 2004), and local political or institutional cultures
of participation and information sharing (de Man 2004; Norheim 2004).”
Nedovic-Budic, Z. 1998. The impact of GIS technology. Environment and Planning B: Planning and
Design 25 (5): 681–92.
Nedovic-Budic, Z. 1999. Evaluating the effects of GIS technology: Review of methods. Journal of
Planning Literature 13 (3): 284–95.
What are the traditional ways of evaluation and how do they come up short on the
multiplicity of extraenvironmental ecologies.
Chrisman and company? Attempts to grapple with extraorganizational ecologies or ways
that elements of GIS cohere to them selves and the ecology in which they are situated.
Harvey, Chrisman, Martin….
Shuurman
Critical GIS
Critiqued by Renee as:
Elwood, Sieber
Positioning the technologic and system components of GIS in societal settings suggests
that organizational development, knowledge management and learning theory may apply.
Extraorganizational relationships that involve GIS emphasize the importance of social
engagement. Undoubtedly, technical aspects relating to computers, systems,
measurement and communication require perspectives that accommodate system
implementation and management. A final point is practice that respects situated
application and user participation. This last consideration belies a dichotomy in GIS
application wherein there is substantial specific core concepts and practices is in stark
contrast with the wide diversity in which they can be deployed.
Measurement theory
Computers,
Social informatics (Kling et al), STS, ANT, SCOT
Technical examples
Practical
Examples of these elements Past efforts to grapple with these dimensions have taken steps to mitigate the complexity
of GIS using Study of distributed social, cultural, expert, and technical arrangements requires a
theoretical approach with sufficient flexibility to address these dimensions.
SEE STRAUSS 1978 – ‘A SOCIAL WORLD PERSPECTIVE’
P 122 quoted by Clarke and Star p 118:
In his seminal article on social worlds and arenas, Strauss argued (1978: 122) that each
social world has at least one primary activity, particular sites, and a technology (inherited
or innovative means of carrying out the social world’s activities) and that once underway,
more formal organizations typically evolve to further one aspect or another of the world’s
activities
‘Data Worlds’ from ‘Social Worlds’:
Social Worlds’ ‘sensitizing concepts:
Universe of discourse – A social world is a universe of discourse – get a more specific
definition.
Entrepreneurs – deeply committed and active individuals (Becker, 1963) cluster
around the core of the world and mobilize those around them.
Situations GIS has some patterns of activity that are refinements of these sensitizing concepts.
>> Entrepeneurs – analogous but not limited to GIS champion
>> Bandwagons – an already well known phenomenon that refers to… software,
hardware, practice, data..
>> Universe of discourse co-constituted with spatial data handling and GIS
operations
>> Particular sites – physical locations at varying scales. ‘Center of calculation’
where GIS happens. Distributed physical/virtual locations that are data, software
or application resources.
>> Work objects – the entities in the database??
>> Technologies – data and analysis practice and processing, measurement tech.
>> Boundary objects – digital entities
Brown, J. S. and P. Duguid (1991). "Organizational Learning and Communities-ofPractice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation."
Organization Science 2(1): 40-57.
Calkins, H. W. and R. F. Tomlinson (1977). Geographic Information Systems:
Method and Equipment for Land Use Planning. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada,
International Geographical Union: 403.
Chaiklin, S. and J. Lave (1993). Understanding practice perspectives on activity and
context. Cambridge; New York, N.Y., Cambridge University Press.
Chrisman, N. R. (1987). "Design of Geographic Information Systems Based on
Social and Cultural Goals." Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote
Sensing 53(10): 1367-1370.
Chrisman, N. R. (1997). Exploring geographic information systems. New York, J.
Wiley & Sons.
Devine, H. A. and R. C. Field (1986). "The gist of GIS." Journal of Forestry 84(8):
17-22.
Elwood, S. (2006). "Negotiating knowledge production: The everday inclusions,
exclusions, and contradictions of participatory GIS research." The
Professional Geographer 58(2): 197-208.
Fox, S. (1997). "Situated learning theory versus traditional cognitive learning
theory: why management education should not ignore management
learning’." Systems Practice 10(6): 727-747.
Goodchild, M. F. (1999). Interoperating geographic information systems. Boston,
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Jankowski, P. and T. L. Nyerges (2003). "Toward a Framework for Research on
Geographic Information-Supported Participatory Decision-Making." URISA
Journal 15: 9-17.
Lave, J. (1993). The practice of learning. Understanfin Practice: Perspectives on
Activity and Context. S. Chaiklin and J. Lave. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
Lave, J. and E. Wenger (1991). Situated learning legitimate peripheral
participation. Cambridge [England]; New York, Cambridge University
Press.
Marble, D. F. (1984). Geographic Information Systems and Land Information
Systems: differences and similarities. The Decision Maker and Land
Information Systems: Papers and Proceedings from the FIG International
Symposium, 1984, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, Canadian Institute of
Surveying.
Onsrud, H. J. and G. Rushton (1995). Sharing geographic information. New
Brunswick, N.J., Center for Urban Policy Research.
Sheppard, E. S. (1995). "GIS and society: Towards a research agenda."
Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 22(1): 5-16.
Sieber, R. (2006). "Public Participation Geographic Information Systems: A
Literature Review and Framework." Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 96(3): 491-507.
Star, J. and J. Estes (1990). Geographic Information System: An Introduction. New
Jersey, Hall Englewood-Cliffs.