The primary advantage (and disadvantage) of a GIS relates to
its power to combine data from different sources. These sources
are bound to be incompatible in technical details, but also in
deeper ways bound up with the meaning. This presentation will
begin with some examples of routine GIS applications that depend
upon integration, followed by some examples of the radical incoherence
in creating those kinds of data layers. These examples pose a
well-known problem in the practice of GIS.
The solution proposed takes a new turn towards an understanding
of technology (and science) as society crystalized. What is required
may not be more technical tricks, but a more careful interpretation
of the philosophy of knowledge. This presentation will explore
constructivist challenges to GIS knowledge and a deflationary
realist middle ground that may serve to avoid the pitfalls of
the "Science Wars".
An example of combining different sources
Low-Level Radioactive Waste siting (16 states)
An example of incoherence
Wicomico County Wetland Inventories
So, What does truth have to do with it?
Philosophies of measurement
Science and Technology Studies (STS) and the Science Wars
Answering the question:
(How does GIS integrate different sources?)
Naive empiricism [heritage of Bacon, etc.]
testing accesses the "real world" (noncontingent truth).
(Work differs: if true, Nature "speaks";
if false, scientist was deflected by context)
Tacit dualism? [Plato/Kant lurking everywhere...]
belief in an underlying distribution approximated by repeated
measurement
Does repetition necessarily converge?
"Terrain nominale"
[various origins at IGN: B. David, Salgé in Guptill and
Morrison ICA book]
explicit recognition that a test only references reality through
the lens of a specification,
a set of rules; results contingent
Perhaps geographers could use some help from STS.
"Modernist" views of science
Cumulative accretion of knowledge, incremental
Science "discovered"; technology "invented"
Science (when successful) reads Nature,
error comes from social contamination.
Kuhn: Scientific Revolutions (anti-positivist)
Incommensurability between paradigms
Measurement as theory-laden
"Strong Program" [Edinburgh school]
Science social; formed by political/ economic "interests".
[Society => technology]
Beyond the social denunciation
Hybrid networks of social and technical actors
Bidirectional, no dominant flow or control
[Latour, Woolgar, Knorr-Cetina, Pickering, Star, Galison etc.]
Stabilization of Facts
Latour & Woolgar (1987) Laboratory Life
process by which a scientific fact moves:
· from a speculation (hypothesis)
Intermediaries involve degrees of qualification (modalities)
that limit the scope, specify who was saying this, etc.
· to a fact (taken-for-granted).
Facts are made, without being made-up
Latour (1999) Pandora's Hope argues a symmetry between fact and
fetish
Belief cannot be dismissed as anti-science.
Role of "Inscription"
Some part of the world rolled up to be mobile;
[Latour argues that the core technology of Western science comes
from
"Centers of Calculation" (eg. Captain Cook)]
Translations
In place of rigid division of content and context, practices of
modification, displacement...
[a key to understanding integration?]
Boundary Objects (Star and Griesemer; Fujimura)
stabilize relationships between cooperators;
provide a stable object with multiple definitions
(not necessarily completely translated...)
Overall: radical symmetry
Defenders of "Science" [Sokal, etc.]
infuriated by being treated as "primitive tribe"
House of Sand (argue about foundations)
argue that science works...
Reaction to "french philosophers" (Baconian?)
Mistake STS for "post-modern"
[Latour "we never were modern"]
"Science is not a self-cleaning oven, so there is nothing
you can do about the layers of artifacts on its walls" Roger
Guillemin
"Wars have devastating effects since they force every camp
to stoop to the level of the adversary" Bruno Latour, Pandora's
Hope p. 299
GIS and spatial analysis under attack on many fronts (post-modern
critics)
Misunderstandings abound (all sides)
Perhaps a time to change the questions...
Map as mirror
"correspondence" theory of representation
requires unitary connection (world => map)
roundly rejected by cartographers
(not just Denis Wood Power of Maps)
Instrumentalism
map does work, serves interests (power)
Constructivism
maps as the result of practices; create the images within which
people operate
Deflationary Realism
no need for a single story: accept different roles
Natural Ontological Attitude (Fine) : core position
anti-essentialism; yes maps can be true
Not some grand story of "Science"
just a set of translations that nudge the data a bit closer to
some form where they assist in clarifying a larger purpose...
No guaranteed method for all times and all places
Each data source:
as good as money will buy (multiple contingency)
referenced to multiple specifications
(purposes, backgrounds, tacit knowledge)
Common numerical scale is not enough;
integration requires negotiation, responsibility
Integration takes many paths
Science Studies provide some insights
Coordination and mediation in a collective provide the tacit glue
that holds the technology together.
In GIS Practice:
No magic bullet: understand the application, the data, the customer...
Responsibility (accountability) must become a part of data dissemination
Until you really understand what to do, it will seem overwhelming, but once you obtain the trust of all parties, the tricks might be very very simple.