Cartography and Geographic Information Science

ISSN: 1523-0406 (Print) 1545-0465 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/tcag20

Geographic information science as a

multidisciplinary and multiparadigmatic field

Thomas Blaschke & Helena Merschdorf

To cite this article: Thomas Blaschke & Helena Merschdorf (2014) Geographic information
science as a multidisciplinary and multiparadigmatic field, Cartography and Geographic
Information Science, 41:3, 196-213, DOI: 10.1080/15230406.2014.905755

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15230406.2014.905755

© 2014 The Author(s). Published by Taylor &

Francis.

Published online: 23 Apr 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 21708

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 8 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tcag20
Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 2014
Vol. 41, No. 3, 196–213, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15230406.2014.905755

Geographic information science as a multidisciplinary and multiparadigmatic field

Thomas Blaschke* and Helena Merschdorf
Department of Geoinformatics – Z_GIS, University of Salzburg, Hellbrunner Str. 34, 5020 Salzburg, Austria
(Received 1 October 2013; accepted 13 March 2014)

Despite the fact that the field of GIScience has been around for two decades, there is still little agreement as to the exact
contents and boundaries of the field. Many authors have dedicated several publications concerned with defining the field,
yet little consensus has been reached. Because of the highly dynamic nature of the discipline, new areas are constantly
added and rigid borders may have a constraining influence on the field. On the contrary, one agreed part of the many
GIScience definitions is the search for general principles, but principles for what? Can we define one field or discipline or
all potential fields using geospatial information? Probably not. Therefore, rather than attempting to demarcate exact
boundaries for GIScience as a discipline or a multidisciplinary field in order to prove its respectability, we herein attempt
to analyze the contents of such a dynamic field on the basis of scientific literature and to assess the multidisciplinary and
multiparadigmatic nature of GIScience. Such a discussion is not purely of academic nature, but also bears implications
beyond academic discourse, in terms of external scientific funding and research grants. We question whether there is a
“dominant” paradigmatic approach in GIScience and identify a need for adopting a multiparadigmatic view to accommo-
date the multifaceted nature of space, spatial representations, and the societal implications of geospatial information.
Keywords: GIScience; paradigm; multiparadigmatic; GIS; GIScience trends

Introduction perception across the globe. While some are reserved in

Several authors have noted the advantages of multidisci- using the term “GIScience” and prefer the term
plinary and interdisciplinary perspectives within the field “Geoinformatics,” others are strong advocates who
of Geographic Information Science (Goodchild 1992, entirely agree with the phrase “GIScience,” despite the
2004b; Mark 2003; Blaschke, Strobl, et al. 2012; fact that both the terms “geographic” and “science” have
Reitsma 2013) and within Geoinformatics. From an epis- been widely disputed within this context. In this article,
temological and from a bibliographic standpoint, however, we analyze scientific literature and coherently structure the
the multidisciplinary nature of research on questions competing views, thereby attempting to analyze the
raised by GIS, the research field that will define the next advantages of the multidisciplinary perspectives within
generation of GIS, the body of knowledge that GIS imple- GIScience and the challenges encompassed in the multi-
ments, and the use of GIS as a tool for scientific research disciplinary and multiparadigmatic nature of the field. We
(Goodchild 2009, l. 527) may result in the fragmentation decouple this situation from GIS as the underlying tech-
of an otherwise unified body of literature. Because such nology. Undoubtedly, GIS has been successful in any
research is conducted within several academic fields, respect. Harvey (2013) argues that while successful tech-
scholars who focus only on the established sources of a nologies disappear; they become infrastructure. GIS may,
particular discipline may bypass important studies that therefore, be regarded as integral foundation of the infor-
have appeared elsewhere. Further complications may mation age. Harvey argues to consider this situation to be
arise due to differences in terminology across academic a “Post-GIS era.” This might be going too far. Using the
disciplines, conflicting standards for the assessment of analogy of cars as nearly ubiquitous goods in western
funding proposals and published results and the inade- societies, this would not lead to a “Post-car society” –
quacy of widely used practices to pigeonhole interdisci- unless getting rid of individual cars. We therefore in this
plinary research in a well-labeled academic field. In this article avoid to talk too much of GIS regarding the pre-
context, it is important to assess the term “science” in sence, but we need to discuss the critical discussion about
“GIScience” and how it impacts the perception and cred- GIS in throughout the late 1980s and the 1990s.
ibility of the field. Furthermore, it is interesting to evaluate Scientific disciplines as well as multi- and interdisci-
how the term is variously perceived depending on the plinary fields may be associated with scientific commu-
authors’ own backgrounds and possible differences in nities and may have own conferences and journals, just to

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

© 2014 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis.

This is an Open Access article. Non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly attributed, cited, and is not altered,
transformed, or built upon in any way, is permitted. The moral rights of the named author(s) have been asserted.
 Cartography and Geographic Information Science 197

name a few typical manifestations of academic work. The tightly coupled to GIS as a tool or method and may
study of Geographic Information Science is one such reach much further into disciplines like Computer
interdisciplinary community. Creation of new institutions Science or Cognitive Sciences. We may distinguish here
has also occurred, with specific goals of connecting scien- three main perspectives of why scientists address
tists from different disciplines, but also providing a better GIScience as a field: (a) Many of the earlier attempts to
visibility to this field. Naming may therefore be important. define GIScience started from the GIS technology and a
To comprehensively assess the nature of GIScience widely believed theory deficit; (b) in a later phase, scien-
and where it fits in to the complex structure of academia, tists increasingly often tried to demarcate the field. Both
this article will comprehend the following perspectives – or phases – are certainly interwoven and
overlapping in regard to their usage through time. They
● We discuss what GIScience is currently believed to are increasingly ensued by (c) a multiparadigmatic
be, based on previous research about GIScience and approach, which we will discuss in detail in Section
its positioning, by distinguishing insiders’ views “widening up – a multidisciplinary and multiparadigmatic
and the appreciation by a wider scientific perspective.” Like in other fields, scientists increasingly
community. try to build their arguments on literature analyses or on
● We analyze the development of GIScience in three other lists that can be derived from the topic areas of key
phases, from the initial definition of the field GIScience conferences, such as the bi-annual GIScience
through to the most recent developments conference series or the COSIT conferences (Fisher 2001;
● We empirically analyze the structure of this topic Caron et al. 2008; Parr and Lu 2010; Kemp, Kuhn, and
area based on its overall statistics: number of Brox 2012; Blaschke and Eisank 2012).
papers, number of authors, number of citations, h- Raper (2009, 74) comprehensively studied the field of
index of the topic area, average citations per paper, GIScience, mainly examining its history and the main
and average citations per author. issues it addresses. He concludes that GIScience is “a
● And finally we discuss the nature of GIScience perfect multi-discipline with a core of theory, data, and
(science vs. multiparadigmatic field), based on the software engineering work and a periphery of engagement
findings of the research outlined in the prior sec- with related disciplines.” He justifies his conclusion by
tions establishing that GIScience utilizes aspects of both hard
science (induction, deduction, and abduction) and social
We hypothesize that GIScience did not just evolve as an sciences (ethnography and critical social theory) in order
interdisciplinary field by accident or because leading to deal with the theoretical aspects of spatiotemporal
scientists lacked an academic “home base”; rather, the representation, thereby serving as a fundamental theoreti-
necessity to work across traditional disciplinary lines cal framework for the field of GIS, whereby science seems
increases, as well as the ability to do so. If our hypothesis to be the “dominant mode.”
holds true, then there is a need to develop an understand- Blaschke, Strobl, and Donert (2011) and Blaschke,
ing of the structure of multidisciplinary scholarship. This Strobl, et al. (2012) have argued that GIScience is a
will help to better acknowledge and reward multidisciplin- relatively new interdisciplinary field of research based
ary scholars, like those studying GIScience research ques- upon the understanding that basic and applied research
tions, and allow academia to better address the geospatial must be reflected within society (Craglia et al. 2008).
problems we face today. GIS has been well established in many different eco-
nomic sectors, like natural resource management, real
estate, and insurance. New fields for GIScience research
Previous research about GIScience and its positioning have arisen, for example, in the health care sector, con-
When writing about GIScience, one needs to start with the cerning epidemiology, hospital management, and patient
work of Goodchild, particularly his 1992 definitional arti- care logistics. Interdisciplinary domains including com-
cle and his 2010 progress review article. Goodchild coined puter science, surveying, or image processing and
the term Geographic Information Science in a key note applied fields such as forestry, geology, spatial planning,
talk at the Fourth International Symposium on Spatial hydrology, or utility management have played an impor-
Data Handling in 1990 in Zürich and in a related article tant role, at least in the technical realm.
published in January 1992. As Couclelis (2012) points GIScientists may sometimes find themselves in a
out, defining Geographic Information Science is more somewhat defensive role when it comes to positioning
complex than naming it. She claims that from the various Geographic Information Science (Kemp, Kuhn, and Brox
definitions given over the years, few are fully satisfactory, 2012; Blaschke and Eisank 2012, Reitsma 2013). Kemp,
most being either too narrow or too broad. She diagnoses Kuhn, and Brox (2012) state that researchers in this field
that part of the problem is that the field itself keeps often find it difficult to argue in established disciplines like
evolving. The more recent developments may be less Geography, Statistics, or Computer Science. Kemp, Kuhn,
198 T. Blaschke and H. Merschdorf

and Brox diagnose reasons for this to include problems of perspective; for example, how GIS were being used to
a narrow focus on indices like Thomson-Reuters’ for use further empower those already in power, while margin-
in assessment metrics, or the relative importance of con- alizing others. As a direct result of this issue, addressed in
ferences versus journals, or different criteria used in geo- “Ground Truth,” the field of Participatory GIS emerged
graphy and computer science (as well as other fields, such (Goodchild 2006), which demonstrates the importance of
as statistics or economics), or the highly variable meaning critique for the positive evolution of a domain.
of “strong impact factors” across fields, and so on (Kemp, Naturally, Friday Harbor did not completely end the
Kuhn, and Brox 2012, 268). debates surrounding GIS; however, it did steer them in a
new direction, characterized by collaboration between sta-
keholders, in order to ensure a positive development of the
Analysis of the development of GIScience discipline.
To fully understand the role of GIScience, it is essential to
take a look at its roots and development. The necessity for The storehouse metaphor
GIScience lies in GIS technology, which is anchored
within the broader framework of geography. Although In his 1992 paper in which the term GIScience was
GIS was devised in the 1960s, it was not until the initially coined, Goodchild addresses the special properties
1980s, by which time GIS had assumed much larger of geographic information, as well as issues raised by the
dimensions, that anyone saw a need for a GIScience use of GIS technology because of the nature of geographic
(Goodchild 2004a). Herein we distinguish three main information. He goes on to suggest GIScience as a possi-
phases of the young development of GIScience. ble solution to deal with the theoretical shortcomings of
conventional GIS and attempts to define a generic set of
questions that need to be addressed (Goodchild 1992, 34).
Close to two decades later in his follow-up paper,
GIScience’ initial phase
Goodchild refers to the issues which he outlined earlier,
Differentiation of GIScience from GIS and geography namely data collection and measuring, data capture, spa-
Although many prominent signposts of the roots of GIS are tial statistics, data modeling and theories of spatial data,
in disciplines such as landscape planning, forestry, and data structures, algorithms and processes, display, analy-
resource management, GIS is regarded to be connected to tical tools, as well as institutional, managerial, and ethical
Geography – also because of the name. In the German issues, as his own take on a GIScience research agenda,
speaking countries, many textbooks, names of institutions, while Clarke (1997) defined GIScience as “the discipline
academic programs, or job titles avoid the term that uses geographic information systems as tools to
“Geographic” and use “Geo-Informationssysteme” instead. understand the world.” Mark (2003) adequately analyzed
Nevertheless, worldwide, the term Geographic(al) and summed up various views about GIScience but
Information System is widely accepted. The relationship avoided providing an own – new – definition.
between GIScience and Geography also lies in the realm of This earlier phase of GIScience may be characterized
GIS technology, since GIS emerged as a sub-discipline of by the metaphor of GIScience as a storehouse of knowl-
Geography and GIScience emerged as a result of the inherent edge that is implemented in GIS and makes the tools of
conceptual shortcomings in GIS. After the decline of the GIS possible. Until around 2002/2003, consensus was
discipline of Geography in North America around the mid- reached that GIScience searches for general principles
twentieth century, marked by several internationally (Goodchild 1992, 2004a, 2004b), such as the enumeration
renowned North-American Universities closing their of possible topological relationships between pairs of fea-
Geography departments (Harvard, the University of tures by Egenhofer and Franzosa (1991), one of the most
Michigan, the University of Chicago, Columbia University, cited papers in GIScience (Fisher 2001). It may discover
amongst others), the emergence of GIS technology seemed faster algorithms, more efficient indexing schemes, or new
to offer a new glimpse of hope for the subject (Goodchild ways of visualizing geographic information. In a nutshell,
2007b). Goodchild (2007b) is certain that the revival of the most of the definitional papers in GIScience started from
discipline of Geography is largely owed to GIS. However, GIS as a technology that has been fundamental to the
the relationship between GIS and Geography was initially creation of combined computer hardware and software
quite hostile. A summary of the critique directed at the field for the capture, storage, checking, integration, manipula-
of GIS from the late 1980s until the mid-1990s can be found tion, display, and analysis of spatially referenced data
in Table 1, along with the respective results or reactions. (Longley et al. 2005).
Following Friday Harbor, John Pickles assembled and GIS has been and still regarded as a technology to
edited a book by the name of “Ground Truth: The Social integrate data that can be mapped and that provides
Implications of Geographic Information Systems,” which powerful solutions to spatial analysis problems in geo-
addresses many weaknesses of GIS from a social graphy and in many other disciplines. Likewise,
 Cartography and Geographic Information Science 199

Table 1. Timeline of GIS-critique.

Year Milestone Result or reactions

1988 President of the Association of American Openshaw responds to geographers resisting the developments
Geographers referred to GIS as “nonintellectual of GIS by stating that “most of the technical cripples in
expertise” geography seemed to have survived the increasing use of
computer technology by essentially ignoring most computer-
based developments…” (Openshaw 1991, 624)
1990 Taylor suggests that GIS are “inadequate in the realm As a response to Taylor, Goodchild (1991) argued that “GIS
of knowledge production, concerned with facts but has made its own limitations an integral part of its research
incapable of meaningful analyses.” (Schuurman for decades” (Goodchild 1991, 336). Furthermore,
2000, 572) Openshaw responds to Taylors critique stating that “without
information, how can there be knowledge?” Openshaw
(Openshaw 1991, 621)
1991 Openshaw proposes GIS as an interdisciplinary field, Taylor and Overton (1991) responded to Openshaws
incorporating human geographers. He believes that provocative views by criticizing the manner in which he
GIS reflects a “social shift,” unable to be contained implies the inferiority of the human geographers’ technical
within geography, however, also suspects that the skills, deeming it as “alienating, unwarranted and
human geographers’ resistance to GIS stems from counterproductive” (Schuurman 2000, 574)
their desire to “retain disciplinary authority”
(Schuurman 2000, 573)
1992 Gordon Clark suggests GIS is an emerging industry Smith’s arguments concerning a possible destructive use of GIS
with commercial interests. put an end to the prior mundane back-and-forth debate
Neil Smith contributes to the debate by raising issues between GISers and Geographers and initiated a “more
concerning the possible involvement of GIS in the constructive conversation about GIS” (Schuurman 2000,
Gulf war, attributing 200,000 Iraqi deaths to such 575)
technological advances.
1993 Robert Lake picks up the thread of criticism initiated Sui (1994) responds from within the GIS community stating
by Smith regarding epistemology and positivism that the GIS community is aware of the conceptual
shortcomings of GIS and is addressing the ethical issues
raised by GIS
1994 Sui suggests a combination of aspects of GIS theory Schuurman (2000) states that “Sui’s petition that no lens on
and aspects of social theory, as he believes that reality can ever be entirely discounted remains an important
“neither “meticulous” positivism or the entreaty for geographers” (Schuurman 2000, 576)
philosophically refined “postpositivist” critiques
can illuminate the entire picture of urban reality”
(Schuurman 2000, 576)
1995 As a result of the ongoing struggles between the two Friday Harbor resulted in the NCGIA’s Initiative 19, which
factions involved in the debate about the nature outlines the study of the social consequences of GIS.
and shortcomings of GIS technology, a meeting Schuurman (2000, 583) later states that “Shifts in the goals
was held at Friday Harbor to settle the debate and of the NCGIA reflect recognition that GIS and geography are
establish a common understanding. inseparable.”

GIScience research in its earlier years often focused on represent corresponding themes in the two research agen-
the role of geography and the relationship to other das, themes that might therefore stand out as being of
disciplines. particular importance.
In this second phase, more research can be identified
that did not directly deal with GIS as a tool or that tries to
Phase 2: defining the field of GIScience justify why to do GIScience research. We may identify
Without a sharp dividing line, we may diagnose that since research which increasingly goes beyond assumptions of
around 2003/2004, more emphasis in scientific literature economically rational homo economicus behavior and
was put on defining the field of GIScience. To some which addresses the “non-mappable.”
degree, the nature of this growing field has already been While entering unsafe ground, we may also conclude
delineated earlier, for example, by Mark (2003), who that many of the early GIScience articles started from
attempted to collect various views on the research focus classic geographical concepts. Such were predominantly
of GIScience and structure them according to repeating based on strong assumptions that distance (time and cost
items in the different research agendas. Table 2 shows the involved in crossing it) is a major explanatory variable to
competing agendas, as defined by Goodchild (1992) and spatial behavior. While the latter assumption may very
the UCGIS (1996), respectively. The topics in italics often hold true, its importance has declined substantially
200 T. Blaschke and H. Merschdorf

Table 2. A comparison of the GIScience research agendas proposed by Goodchild (1992) and the UCGIS (1996).

Goodchild (1992) UCGIS (1996)

Data collection and measurement Spatial data acquisition and integration

Data modeling and theories of spatial data Extensions to geographic representations
Institutional, managerial, and ethical issues GIS and society (ethics, privacy)
Analytical tools Spatial analysis in a GIS environment
Spatial statistics Interoperability of geographic information
Data capture Distributed and mobile computing
Visualization and display Future and development of the spatial information infrastructure
Data structures, algorithms, and processes Cognition of geographic information and ease-of-use issues
Scale
Uncertainty in geographic data and GIS-based analyses

over the last years, and approaches from other disciplines of GIS but GIScience, too. Web 2.0 refers to a generation
were increasingly embraced in GIScience literature, of Internet services and technology that enable a bi-direc-
namely concepts from computer science and from cogni- tional and participatory use of the Internet – more and
tive sciences. After the mid-1990s, many other disciplines more in a sense of an operating system. Overcoming the
discovered the potential of GIScience and began to utilize earlier realm of providing information in one-way mode
its methodologies and tools. According to Raper, many of while mainly distributing static information the Web 2.0 is
these impacts were often very high profile. Only very characterized by user-generated content and collaboration.
recently, GIScientists and Geographers exposed a wide The years 2005 to 2007 witnessed an unprecedented
audience through a cross-cutting publication in a presti- growth of applications such as Wikis, blogs, or mash-
gious publication outlet, namely Science (Richardson ups. The use of spatial information became very common
2013). They claimed a spatial turn in health research – a here and social networking and user-generated web con-
field where much more money is spent on research as tent – that has been termed “VGI” – have disclosed so far
compared to “classic” GIS and GIScience fields. unknown possibilities of the participation of citizens in
Geospatial data on health and social environments have planning initiatives and administration (Atzmanstorfer and
also been used to provide information about health dispa- Blaschke 2013). The advent of freely available Virtual
rities. Richardson provide tangible examples like GIS- Globes such as Google Earth, Microsoft Bing Maps 3D,
based ethnic density measures and spatial data on and similar applications allow users to interact with and
mothers’ residential locations or studies of infant health query overhead imagery and spatial data via a three-
inequalities among immigrant women in New York City. dimensional representation of the Earth (Butler 2006).
We agree with Raper that GIScience is arguably critical Virtual Globes make it relatively straightforward to build
for the study of the spread of disease, the definition of risk spatially enabled web applications. It is simple to overlay
and premiums in insurance cover, the deployment of mili- available data layers and to visualize them (Craglia et al.
tary forces over battlefields, and the targeting of services 2008). Anybody can explore the high resolution imagery
based on demographic information. The last examples provided and can superimpose additional layers such as
already lead to the next phase. The methods, values, and street networks, place-names, hotel information, or land-
tools of the various disciplines involved open up a multi- marks. When trying to summarize Web 2.0 techniques and
paradigmatic perspective with multifaceted introspections tools that fall outside the realm of “traditional” GIS, the
about methods and values. term Neogeography is sometimes used. We may claim that
Neogeography is bringing traditional cartographic and
GIS skills to the masses (Blaschke, Donert, et al. 2012),
Phase 3: crumbling disciplinary walls – VGI, Web 2.0, but the term is very questionable – what is new today
and neogeography while writing this article may not be new when it will be
The rapid gain in popularity of social media platforms read 2 or 3 years later – and will not be used further in this
such as Twitter or Flickr, amongst others, is resulting in article. We may summarize that the advent of Web 2.0 and
a vast magnitude of volunteered geographic information the availability of crowd-sourced information provided the
(VGI), a term coined by Goodchild (2007a), which ground for the development of applications that integrate
encompasses all geographic data provided by users, often- spatial web technologies and VGI in novel and powerful
times in the form of web content supported by Web 2.0 tools that aim at improving citizen participation in spatial
technologies (Elwood, Goodchild, and Sui 2012). We may planning and public administration referring to the concept
claim that Web 2.0 and the ubiquity of data and mapping of good governance as a common ground of political
have radically altered not only the technological landscape action (Atzmanstorfer and Blaschke 2013). Most kinds
 Cartography and Geographic Information Science 201

of VGI applications can be found in the context of dis- (Elwood, Goodchild, and Sui 2012). Such challenges
asters, in participatory planning, but also for all kinds of include, for example, the quality and comprehensiveness
useful and less useful attempts to collectively map events of a given data set in terms of obtaining a representative
and affairs. Goodchild and Glennon (2010) describe the sample population, privacy issues surrounding the use of
potential of VGI for forest-fire mapping as an example of VGI, as well as spatial data handling methods and techni-
a time-critical application. Well known is the example of ques. Elwood, Goodchild, and Sui (2012, 1) describe the
Zook et al. (2010), who document the role of mashing up notion of VGI as a “paradigmatic shift in how geographic
geographic information in the Haiti relief effort, including information is created and shared,” underlining the crucial
CrisisCamp Haiti, OpenStreetMap, Ushahidi, and need for research to be conducted in order to produce
GeoCommons. Liu and Palen (2010) analyze the design appropriate methods for synthesizing and using these
and creation of crisis-map mash-ups in emergency man- data sources. As such, the recent developments of VGI/
agement and disaster relief. In both publications, the big data pose new challenging research avenues to the
respective online mapping mash-ups are found to be a field of GIScience in terms of emerging analytical cap-
key means through which individuals can significantly abilities for GIScience research, while at the same time,
contribute to the work of relief and aid agencies without GIScience seeks to offer a methodological framework for
being physically present in Haiti. We may conclude here handling the particular constraints associated with the use
that through VGI (1) way more users are involved, (2) in a of VGI/big data.
two-way communication mode and (3) VGI can have a
clear societal impact. In this respect, GIScience as a scien-
Most recent and foreseeable trends
tific field is becoming prominent and societal relevant.
Probably the most often used example for harvesting Geoinformatics trends
social media data in GIScience at the moment is Twitter. It is challenging to characterize and structure the current
Because of its open application programming interface, situation in a rapidly evolving field, and it seems nearly
making the entire user-generated content freely available, dangerous to identify, name, and portray trends that are
Twitter data nowadays constitutes an important source of just at the horizon. When looking into the future, while
freely accessible data, providing the basis for a vast range minimizing speculation, one needs to carefully analyze
of GIS-based analyses (Leetaru et al. 2013). Since first very recent trends. We revisited some earlier literature,
appearing online in mid-2006, the platform has been uti- particularly Craglia et al. (2008), Blaschke and Strobl
lized for posting over 170 billion “tweets” by its 870 (2010), Goodchild (2010) and we summarize and weight
million active users, seeing it become one of the most some key findings. Blaschke and Strobl 2010 identified
popular big data sources for social research (Leetaru some trends in GIScience while treating GIS and
et al. 2013). However, since such data also entails a spatial GIScience rather synergistically. They organized these
component, it is also receiving growing attention within trends liberally in 10 themes spanning from (1) spatial
the field of GIScience. data abundance and (2) spatial thinking to (3) non-
For example, Li and Goodchild (2012) analyzed geo- Boolean searches and “spatializing” non-spatial data. (4)
tagged photographs collected on the online photo manage- Spatial computing is expected to form the baseline for (5)
ment service Flickr, in order to deduce a collective view ubiquitous computing. Major challenges rise for future
regarding the location and spatial boundaries of the sense information handling (6) beyond Cartesian metrics and
of place, while Takhteyev, Gruzd, and Wellman (2012) (7) advanced spatial theory on the sphere. An additional
examined the influence of different languages, jurisdictive topic is (8) user-generated (volunteered) Geographic
boundaries, geographic distance, as well as frequency of Information. All these – and other – trends may lead to
air travel on the social ties evident between Twitter users. (9) an “un-GISing” of GIS and GIScience and may lend
Furthermore, Crampton et al. (2013) assessed the potential themselves as stepping stones towards (10) Geo-literacy
impacts of big data for critical human geography using and empowerment.
exploratory methods in an attempt to overcome constraints From a 2014 perspective, we need to emphasize the
commonly associated with the use of VGI, while importance of the Internet of Things. We may expect
Goodchild and Glennon (2010) analyze the use of VGI every facet of society to be affected or even transformed
for disaster response. by the Internet of Things. Already existing examples
Aside from the analytical GIScience research avenues include security applications where sensors inform infor-
enabled by social media VGI, such as analyzing the notion mation systems, which analyze information based on con-
of place or relating subjective perceptions extracted from textual information. We also witness applications that
user-generated data to objective GIS data, volunteered support the protection of the environment. Economically
geographic information has properties that differ greatly promising applications include farm production or techni-
from conventional data sources, which bring to light new cal installations to get early warnings of structural weak-
challenges, necessitating further GIScience research nesses in bridges and dams to more individual energy
202 T. Blaschke and H. Merschdorf

saving solutions, enabling people to remotely control their business cases of analytical services for indoor/outdoor
lights, sprinkler systems, or washing machines at home. physical space operations based, for example, on WiFi or
While the Internet of Things may be seen as the RFID technologies.
technological backbone, which renders possible to track As briefly discussed before, the Internet of Things
moving objects, like GPS-equipped vehicles, commodities permits new applications, with or without combinations
with RFID’s, people with smartphones and so on, of other trends identified here. Borders will become fuzzy.
GIScience needs to be at the forefront of these develop- So far, elderly people are protected against accidents as
ments to guarantee privacy and to reduce misuses. doctors and emergency responders will be alerted the
moment their patients fall. With increasing amounts of
users of such technologies, false alarms are becoming a
Societal and scientific appraisal real burden and trigger research in all kind of plausibility
Obviously, there is no “right” or “wrong” when identifying checks between near real-time data from moving objects
and characterizing trends. Nevertheless, when revisiting the or humans and contextual information.
above findings some 4 years later, we may state that they Geo-enabled smart buildings: Building Information
mainly represented a Geoinformatics point of view and less models (BIM) are becoming a lynchpin in data-to-infor-
so a societal perspective. Although the authors did not mation workflows for physical environments. Companies
claim to be exhaustive, several major developments are like Autodesk aim for “intelligent buildings” in order to
not adequately described, some of them which have been support the concept of “smart buildings” while also inte-
at least on the horizon at the time of writing. Therefore, we grating the surrounding infrastructure, roads, transporta-
try to group such recent and forseeable trends more from a tion, bridges, site planning, city design, utilities, and much
societal/scientific point of view: more. Increasingly, professionals in those areas recognize
the need and the potential for geospatial information in a
● Virtual Globes/Geobrowers: the spatially enabled more cohesive design and planning. Here, indoor
society Geographies may grow together with 3D-planning tools
● A renaissance of time Geography: Mobile objects, and even Geodesign as promoted by ESRI and its City
mobile users and trajectories Engine software.
● Beyond classic geospatial scales: indoor Big Data is maybe one of the most important paradigm
Geographies shifts, which may – with some delay – influence GIScience.
● Beyond the directly measurable: digital humanities Over the past few years, actually since 9/11, the geospatial
● Big data analytics industry explores ways to explore and to share “big data” and
to create services. Despite security issues, climate change,
The first development reached the mass market around geospatial health research, and new ways to explore human–
2005 and has been described comprehensively in litera- environment interactions create the need for early warning
ture. Initially, the quality of VGI data raised some legit- systems, personalized maps, and insights gained from those
imate concern amongst professional GIS-practitioners maps and interactive analyses. Increasingly, GIScience may
regarding certainty, accuracy, and quality of spatial data also have to deal with the issue of national security encroach-
collected by laypersons (Crampton 2010). Goodchild ing personal privacy. “Big Data analytics” currently utilizes
(2008) argues that cartographic products elaborated by spatial and nonspatial information techniques. These are
highly qualified cartographers in traditional mapping growing together toward an ambient information analysis:
agencies guarantee certain standards and specifications, Social media data is generated from individuals while
whereas these quality standards are not necessarily inher- increasingly analyzed for groups of individuals in an anon-
ent to crowd-sourced spatial data, so that VGI is some- ymous way which vaguely separates it from VGI, which is
times termed “asserted geographic information, in that its often non-anonymous. Geographic information penetrates
content is asserted by its creator without citation, refer- our daily lives and provides opportunities to gain insights
ence, or other authority” (Goodchild 2008, 220). on information flow and social networking within a society.
Furthermore, VGI data sets tend to reflect the character- Here, we may reference a recent special issue on “Mapping
istics of specific online-communities of interest and do not Cyberspace and Social Media” (Tsou and Leitner 2013) for
represent the qualities of a random sample population an overview of this fast growing application field.
(Fischer 2012). We may conclude so far that GIScience is highly
Indoor Geographies may be a future trend based on the relevant to society. This is harder to prove as compared
recent technology developments in indoor positioning. to geographic information technologies, which have
Sensor fusion will evolve to support indoor location. been verified many times to influence society and, like-
Location-based sensor fusion will pave the way for geo- wise, to be influenced by society (Harvey and Chrisman
enabled manufacturing as well as the use of the “quanti- 2004; Chrisman 2005). For GIS, tangible examples exist
fied self” through “ambient intelligence.” We witness first where boundaries, map projection, or different
 Cartography and Geographic Information Science 203

representations influence society. Naturally, for way for human geography, as illustrated by Sui and
GIScience, such a debate needs to be conducted mainly deLyser (2012), eventually leading to the development of
on a theoretical level. qualitative GIS (Aitken and Kwan 2010), which may,
according to Sui and deLyser, along with participatory
GIS, feminist GIS, and critical GIS, work to re-conceptua-
lize GIS as more than only quantitative in terms of data,
The multidisciplinary and multiparadigmatic nature of
analysis, and representation.
GIScience
Many more disciplines use GIScience methods (this is well
Widening up – a multidisciplinary and known), for example, when examining the literature available
multiparadigmatic perspective on “GIScience,” “Geographic Information Science,” and
Technical developments have broadened the user base and “Geographical Information Science” in the ISI Web of
enabled ordinary citizens to generate geographic data Knowledge database, it becomes obvious that several disci-
through diverse forms of user-generated content. Science plines other than Geography utilize GIScience (see Figure 1).
needs to not only observe, analyze, and interpret such These disciplines increasingly influence GIScience, per-
developments. Rather, many new scientific research ques- haps even to a degree that we need to re-define the field.
tions arise. Also still being a clear minority and exotic in Since this is an on-going process, repeatedly attempting to
some fields, “mixed-methods research” may direct the find a single comprehensive definition seems to make less

Figure 1. Contributing disciplines to GIScience and their respective methods.

204 T. Blaschke and H. Merschdorf

and less sense. This leads to pluralist research approaches This small issue alone may indicate problems, which exist
and an increase of studies using mixed methods. A pluralist in well-established disciplines with different schools of
research approach to theory consequentially raises the issue thoughts. The situation in newer disciplines may be dif-
of incommensurability of paradigms. ferent as the situation is in Engineering and mostly tech-
In his 1962 book “Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” nological fields of science: here, schools of thoughts may
Thomas Kuhn described the process of intellectual revolu- generally play a small role. For instance, if the word
tion. The key concept – if extremely condensed and sim- “paradigm” is found in Computer Science literature, it is
plified – is that common practice may be regarded as mainly used in combination with different approaches to
normal science, whereas new concepts when clearly con- databases or computing, for example, object-oriented. The
tradicting established thoughts may be called revolution- authors also want to refer to a recent article of Blaschke
ary science. Scientists make discoveries based on their et al. (2014) on a paradigm shift at the interface between
training with exemplary solutions to past puzzles, which remote sensing and GIScience, namely Object-based
Kuhn calls paradigms. A paradigm is “what the members Image Analysis – GEOBIA arose from earlier research
of a scientific community share” (Kuhn 1962, 176). This on image segmentation and use GIS-like spatial analysis
comprises not only the laws and results of this scientific within classification and feature extraction approaches but
community but the methodologies, the aims, the conven- has only more recently been accepted as a new paradigm
tions, the research questions, and their unsolved problems. within the pixel-centered world of remote sensing.
Research questions are expected to be answered within the Pavlovskaya (2006), although writing about the field
constraints of the paradigm. of GIS and not about GIScience, identifies a growing
A major problem in many disciplines including literature on the so-called mixed methods, explicitly mak-
Geography and Computer Science and manifested in the ing a case for combining quantitative and qualitative tech-
respective body of research literature is the dichotomies niques. She states that the number of such projects has
between research approaches. Leszczynski (2009a, 2009b) grown exponentially. In such designs, both techniques are
claims that we need to continue to study the everyday used simultaneously or at different stages within a single
practices and materiality of GIS and mapping. We argue project. This “mixed method” approach may be identified
here that the use of GIS – and subsequently GIScience as one important element in a multi-paradigmatic field.
research about this usage – was somehow manageable Haklay (2012, 479) criticizes the GIScience research
until a few years ago. The use is today so widespread in agendas by stating that “while these agendas might seem
terms of day-to-day applications that it is at least extre- like a coherent body of topics that set the direction of
mely difficult to continue to study this usage. research within the discipline of GIScience, arguably these
A classic way of thought is that paradigms are are not forward-looking but more stock-taking exercises.”
mutually exclusive and, subsequently, that they offer dif- He argues that GIScience is merely a reaction to GIS tech-
ferent ways of seeing. A synthesis is not possible, one nology, rather than an innovative field of research and there-
cannot operate in more than one paradigm at any given fore labels it as an inclusive research approach (Haklay
point in time, since in accepting the assumptions of one; 2012). Furthermore, Haklay (2012, 480) believes that “the
we defy the assumptions of all the others. For example, in research agenda is shaped by societal and technological
organization science, Weaver and Gioia (1994, 565) claim changes, and the people that are involved in GIScience
that there is “no common measure among paradigms of research seem content to include new research avenues.”
inquiry” nor “meaningful communication” across para- He argues that GIScience eventually incorporates such new
digms. There were similar discussions in Geography, “research avenues” into its research agenda, even if it
which are not repeated here. For GIS (not GIScience), encounters initial critique within the GIScience community.
we refer to the literature describing the waves of critique He gives the example of critical GIS, which is nowadays a
(Schuurman 2000). Regarding GIScience, we may exem- legitimate aspect of GIScience; however, it was initially
plarily point to a debate between human geographers in faced with a great deal of controversy (Haklay 2012). Such
this field, namely between Schuurman and Leszczynski on a multiparadigmatic characterization of today’s situation in
the one side and Crampton on the other. Crampton (2009) GIScience may reach its limits when individual parameters
summarizes his critique around the argument of the “mate- drift away perpendicularly. A bifurcation tendency is exem-
riality of GIS.” He states that Schuurman and Leszczynski plified by the two controversy positions in a recent book
(Leszczynski 2009a; Schuurman 2006; Schuurman and “Are there fundamental principles in Geographic
Leszczynski 2006) argue for the materiality of GIS by Information Science?” (Harvey 2012). The two main con-
developing formal, abstract, computationally tractable tributions of the “Tobler Lecture Event” by Frank (2012) and
descriptions of entities, which GIScience calls “ontology.” Chrisman (2012) could hardly be more antagonistic. Frank
In his response, Crampton outlines his doubts with these formulates a mathematical and formal view on GIScience,
statements. In particular, Crampton sees a severe problem which mainly captures the quantitative and computational
in the different uses of the term ontology in GIScience. GIScience literature, while Chrisman presents a more
 Cartography and Geographic Information Science 205

modest, anti-essentialist, anti-interpretative deflationary term “GIScience” in the Web of Science database, a total
stance of GIScience. Chrisman claims that this deflationary of 480 publications can be found (January 2014). The first
approach leaves room to compile a list of fundamental prin- publication indexed in this database dates back to 1992,
ciples, but without great claims of essentialism. and the number of articles being published has steadily
Nevertheless, if taking this deflationary approach to its increased ever since (Figure 2). The three peaks indicated
extreme, we may end up in a completely unstructured field in Figure 2 roughly correspond to the three phases of
with or without any formalized approaches existing next to GIScience research identified in this article, while
each other. Before we can answer if this is a danger to an Figure 3 displays the number of citation received per year.
evolving field, we may first – in the next subsection – Using the same search criteria and keywords, we ana-
analyze how “big” and how well perceived this field is. lyzed which disciplines are the main contributors to
GIScience research (Figure 4). Hereby we used a thresh-
old of five publications (of a total of 433). Figure 4
indicates that over 35% of the total publications matching
Literature analysis: the field of GIScience and its impact
our search criteria fall into the domain of the computer
Dozens of metrics have been created to serve as proxies sciences, whereas only roughly 22% fall into the category
for productivity of individual researchers, or of groups of of Physical Geography. Geography constitutes the largest
researchers, or even institutions. Many of these indicators component with just over 51%; however, also disciplines
are also used to inform about the “importance” or the such as the Information Sciences (~18%), Ecology
“impact” of a particular publication, or, if aggregated, of (~14%), Engineering (~9%), Geology (~9%) and Remote
a particular researcher, group, or institution. While there Sensing (~8%) play a significant role.
are certainly appropriate uses for a variety of measures,
there are also dangers of misuse, such as the creation of
abstruse incentives to maximize the number of
publications. Is GIScience a science at all?
Despite all the widely known limitations and flaws of The ongoing debate surrounding the question of whether
bibliometric measurements, we carry out a small study to GIScience is a science or not is nearly as old as the field
find out how well GIScience is being reflected in peer- itself. Therefore, it has received much attention in litera-
reviewed literature and what are the main actors and their ture and is a commonly discussed theme among
related disciplines. One of the greatest limitations of such GIScientists, who feel the need to defend their discipline
an analysis is the fact that the underlying databases, to outsiders and to promote it as a justifiable field of
namely ISI – Web of Knowledge and SCOPUS – predo- research and teaching (Reitsma 2013). Since this issue
minantly cover English language publications and rela- has been recently comprehensively and, as we feel, very
tively few documents written in other languages. convincingly and appropriately addressed by F. Reitsma,
Nevertheless, we assume that this bias affects all disci- we will keep this section very short and refer mainly to her
plines relevant to our study subject. line of arguments.
When searching for the phrases “geographical infor- To determine whether GIScience is a science or not,
mation science,” “geographic information science,” or the one may look at the bounds of the term “science” itself.

Figure 2. ISI-Indexed GIScience related publications per year.

206 T. Blaschke and H. Merschdorf

Figure 3. GIScience-related articles: number of citations per year.

Figure 4. Main disciplines contributing to GIScience publications according to the ISI Web of Science database.

However, these are by no means clearly or uniformly (Reitsma 2013). However, defining science based on a
defined, a problem which is commonly known as the scientific method raises an entirely new debate as to the
“demarcation problem” (Reitsma 2013). The demarcation nature of a scientific method, which has been broadly
problem constitutes the issue of separating science from discussed, yet has not resulted in a uniform or coherent
pseudo-science, anti-science, or para-science. This pro- conclusion. Reitsma (2013, 215) states that “if we agree
blem has historically been based on the discordance of that science lacks a definitive and objective methodology,
defining science based on a scientific method, as opposed we might happily throw GIScience in the melee, yet we
to a universal set of sufficient demarcation criteria have not yet solved the problem of demarcating science, if
 Cartography and Geographic Information Science 207

it cannot be done on its method.” Assuming the alternate interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary research. He
means of defining science, namely, based on a universal describes multidisciplinary research as a research scenario,
set of demarcation criteria, is also problematic, since most with scholars from different disciplines collaborating in a
philosophers doubtfully regard the existence of a set of manner which upholds the autonomy of each separate
sufficient conditions which may be used to demarcate discipline, and that does not challenge the underlying
science from non-science (Reitsma 2013). Thus, there is disciplinary or theoretical structures. The second scenario,
increasing agreement on the fact that there may not be any namely, interdisciplinary research is described as the dis-
clearly definable criteria for demarcating science, which ciplinary-transcending collaboration between scholars,
subsequently means that there is no consensus about the involving a uniform terminology, methodology, or
nature of science itself (Reitsma 2013). Nevertheless, there research framework as the interface between the various
are a number of criteria, which an increasing number of disciplines. And the last scenario of transdisciplinary
philosophers of science agree on as being central to research is said to engage in a “mutual interpenetration
demarcating science. Such key criteria include, for of disciplinary epistemologies” (Jantsch 1972, 104).
instance, simplicity, predictive accuracy, coherence with Furthermore, Gioia and Pitre (1990, 585) define a para-
known facts, as well as testability (Stamos 2007). digm as “a general perspective or way of thinking that
reflects fundamental beliefs and assumptions about the
nature of organizations,” which in turn makes a multi-
Multidisciplinary versus interdisciplinary paradigmatic field one where many such perspectives or
To characterize and distinguish the unique structure of a schools of thinking collaborate in the production of
multidisciplinary discipline, as opposed to a unified aca- knowledge. Based on these definitions, we regard the
demic discipline, it is perhaps essential to look at the way field of GIScience to be of multidisciplinary and multi-
an academic discipline is defined. Repko (2008, 4) defines paradigmatic nature, because of the manner in which
such as “a particular branch of learning or body of knowl- experts from different fields and with different back-
edge whose defining elements, phenomena, assumptions, grounds contribute to the body of knowledge, while still
epistemology, concepts, theories, and methods distinguish remaining autonomous in their various fields. Figure 5
it from other knowledge formations.” From this definition depicts these differences in intensity and quality of inter-
alone it becomes evident that GIScience does not fulfill actions graphically.
the premises it entails, in the sense that it is not a closed For a field as comprehensive as GIScience, the use of
entity, but rather draws on the theories, concepts, and just one paradigm would result in a too narrow perception
methods provided by other disciplines. Since the academic of its multifaceted nature. One discipline alone could by
community, including institutions, funding agencies, and no means offer all the necessary input for the theories,
journals, require a field to define itself under some sort of concepts, and methods of GIScience, since these require a
umbrella term, in order to account for academic credibility broader outlook in order to break down their complexity
and recognition, but also to be eligible for funding, it is and offer solutions. Therefore, it is essential for GIScience
essential to take a look at how GIScience fits under such research to transcend the boundaries of various disciplines
an umbrella term. GIScience is often termed as “interdis- and paradigms, all bearing profoundly different assump-
ciplinary,” “multidisciplinary,” “transdisciplinary,” or even tions and thereby making a valuable contribution to the
“multiparadigmatic”; however, the usage of these terms body of knowledge.
seems to be synonymous, although they strongly differ in “The most difficult thing in science, as in other fields,
meaning. Therefore, we aim to define the abovementioned is to shake off accepted views” (Sarton 1929/1959, 88).
terms in order to subsequently determine where GIScience This quote reflects the challenge that GIScience and other
can be placed. Jantsch (1972) already identified three multidisciplinary fields are facing today. In the established
forms of collaborative activity amongst scholars from and somewhat rigid views of academia, a field which
different fields, namely, multidisciplinary, cannot be pigeonholed or distinctly defined as a single

Figure 5. Multidisciplinary research (left), interdisciplinary research (middle), and transdisciplinary research (right), after Tress, Tress,
and Fry (2003), modified.
208 T. Blaschke and H. Merschdorf

comprehensive domain often finds itself in a less favorable GIScience is based on inductive methods, which leads us
position, compared to a unified and distinct academic to reason that it may belong to the humanities rather than
field. This is reflected both in academic credibility given the natural sciences. In the following section, these three
to the research resulting from such a field, as well as approaches are briefly outlined and discussed and the
funding and the availability of specialized journals. importance attached to being labeled as a science is
examined.

Discussion
GIScience: a multiparadigmatic field (or an own Attempting to position GIScience as an own scientific
scientific discipline)? discipline
Why is this discussion – discipline versus sub-discipline Adherence to key criteria central to a scientific discipline
versus multidisciplinary field – relevant at all? According Reitsma (2013) examined a number of criteria, which an
to Reitsma (2013), it is important to justify the field of increasing number of philosophers of science agree on as
GIScience as a science in order to receive funding from being central to demarcating science, in the context of
agencies. She states that funding agencies favor “hard” GIScience research. Such key criteria include, for
sciences, which work with empirical methods and produce instance, simplicity, predictive accuracy, coherence with
substantial results, as opposed to “soft” sciences, whose known facts, as well as testability (Stamos 2007).
contribution is often not sufficiently recognized (Reitsma Reitsma (2013) concludes that GIScience may well
2013). Furthermore, Wright, Goodchild, and Proctor pass as a science, if defined on the basis of the key-criteria
(1997) argue that the term “science” is often used syno- identified by Stamos (2007), as it contains significant
nymously with the term “research” and that it therefore aspects of most criteria. However, she goes on to mention
functions as a “crude but convenient shorthand for aca- that it is difficult to define a science based on a small list
demic legitimacy” (Wright, Goodchild, and Proctor 1997, of criteria, since there may well be further noteworthy
354). Reitsma (2013) also points out that underpinning the criteria to be considered such as the generality of results
label of science leads to more credibility for arguments or (Reitsma 2013). She also notes that GIScience does not
evidence gained within a field and, therefore, states that study the world as such, in contrast to most other sciences,
there may well be good reason for “a bit of scientific but rather studies representations of the world in terms of
gerrymandering” (Reitsma 2013, 219) in order to include geographic information and considers the procedures
GIScience within the realm of sciences. involved in gathering, managing, analyzing, and visualiz-
Given that there seems to be no clear demarcation of ing such information. Therefore, she concludes that
science itself, placing GIScience under the umbrella term GIScience cannot exist independently from other sciences,
of science is a difficult task and can be approached in but rather “It exists in symbiosis with other disciplines,
various manners. One such approach was taken by such as geography and psychology, which guide data
Reitsma (2013), who compared some examples taken collection and other information needs” (Reitsma
from the field of GIScience against various scientific key 2013, 219).
criteria (Table 3). Another approach was taken by
Goodchild (2004b), who bases his arguments on
Anselin’s concept of spatial heterogeneity and Tobler’s The validity of laws and principles in GIScience
first law of Geography and points out that GIScience has Goodchild (2004b) states that “all fields of scientific activ-
law-like statements. Furthermore, it has been argued that ity serve to simplify the world around us through the

Table 3. Scientific key criteria and their application in the field of GIScience according to Reitsma (2013).

Criterion Adherence to criterion in GIScience research

Simplicity: The guidance principle of selecting the best GIScience exhibits a shift toward simplicity by identifying simpler
(simplest) theory amongst rivaling theories theories for the representation of geographic phenomena, for example,
the primitive data model for geographic features
Predictive Accuracy: A measure for the degree to which GIScience is concerned with making predictions about information itself
predictions hold true or about the methods that involve the use of information, for example,
spatial interpolation
Coherence: The relationship between hypotheses or The 9-intersect model from Egenhofer and Franzosa (1991), which
theories and what they are trying to represent describes topological relationships between two regions can be seen as
an example of coherence
Testability This premise is inherently fulfilled by GIScience since geographic
information is persistent and repeatable
 Cartography and Geographic Information Science 209

identification of general principles (…)” and from this, make more substantial progress than in the larger disci-
draws the conclusion that “principles therefore form the pline and perhaps eventually to generalize the results of
foundation of most learning in science” (Goodchild GIScience to the larger context. We therefore need to
2004b). Therefore, Goodchild (2004b) attempts to justify discuss if and how GIScience is embedded in the social
GIScience as a science on the basis of its dependence on sciences and humanities, what are the specificities of the
scientific laws and principles. spatial approach in the broader context of ICT, and what
Goodchild (2004b) concludes that the merits of GIScience can in turn contribute to this broader context.
GIScience as a science are indeed attributed to the founda-
tion on such, and many more, scientific principles.
However, he concedes that there is currently little con- GIScience as a social science?
sensus as to the underlying principles of GIScience and As reasoned by Haklay (2012) in his paper entitled
that it is “hard to find clear statements of the founding “Geographic Information Science: Tribe, badge and Sub-
principles of the emerging discipline of GIScience as it is Discipline,” the field of GIScience is based on an induc-
to find clear statements of the founding principles of tive rather than deductive approach. While deductive
Geography” (Goodchild 2004b). Therefore, although methods begin with a theory, which is then extended to
Goodchild (2004b) is convinced of the validity of a hypothesis, and subsequently either confirmed or dis-
GIScience as a field of science based on its foundation carded depending on the observations (tests) carried out
on scientific principles, these are not universally recog- (Figure 6 upper part), inductive methods work the other
nized as adequate criteria and therefore the debate may way around, building theories on the basis of observations
well continue. Table 4 lists four main principles identified (Figure 6 lower part). Inductive approaches (also referred
by Goodchild and adds their respective relevance to to as “bottom-up” approaches) work with initial observa-
GIScience. We may also conclude that it would be a too tions and, based on these, aim to detect patterns and
much reductionist view to consider GIScience as an off- regularities, which may then lead to the formulation of
shoot of information science, a danger which has already hypotheses and, ultimately, theories.
been identified by Goodchild (2006). Indeed, some Max Born, a Nobel-Prize winning physicist, states that
GIScientists today occupy positions in computer science induction is the process in which a number of observations
departments. One of the arguments for GIScience has been may be generalized into a general rule (Born 1949). He
that it represents a relatively well-defined area of informa- concludes that although there is no definite criterion for
tion science, and that as a result, it may be possible to the validity of an inductive rule, there is a scientfic code

Table 4. Main principles identified by Goodchild (2004b), adopted and extended, and relevance to GIScience.

Law/principle Relevance to GIScience

Tobler’s First Law of Geography (TFL) – “Everything All spatial concepts and methods implemented in GIScience adhere to
is related to everything else, but near things are more TFL, for example,
related than distant things” (Sui 2004). ● Generalization
● Interpolation
● Resampling
● Contour Mapping
● GIS Data Models
● Quadtree Structures
The Fractal Principle – “geographic phenomena reveal Not mentioned explicitly by Goodchild but inherently evident in many of
more detail the more closely one looks and this today’s application.
process reveals additional detail at an orderly and
predictable rate” (Goodchild 2004b)
The Uncertainty Principle – “the geographic world is Highly relevant but not often explicitly addressed. Kwan (2012) attempts
infinitely complex and that any representation must to develop a framework to handle the “uncertain geographic context
therefore contain elements of uncertainty (…)” problem.”
(Goodchild 2004b).
Anselin’s concept of spatial heterogeneity – “Many The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem can be seen as an example of spatial
phenomena studied in regional science lead to heterogeneity, which is a commonly addressed topic in GIScience,
structural instability over space, in the form of whereby the results of statistical analyses change when the underlying
different response functions or systematically varying areal units are altered. It is also related to TFL while the particular
parameters. In addition, the measurement errors that variations to a generally assumed distance-decay function are studied.
result from the use of ad hoc spatial units of Therefore, it is not always – like in Goodchild 2004b – seen as an own
observation are likely to be non-homogeneous” concept.
(Anselin 1988)
210 T. Blaschke and H. Merschdorf

Figure 6. Inductive “bottom-up” workflow (upper part) and deductive “top-down worklows” (bottom).

which defines the criteria necessary for validifying an Conclusion

induction. However, he refrains from specifying what In this article, we started from the hypothesis that
such a code may entail and stresses that it may well be GIScience is a multidisciplinary and multiparadigmatic
rejected by other members of the scientific community, field – rather than attempting to demarcate exact bound-
since there is no guarantee that they will accept the same aries for GIScience as a discipline. It is safe to say that
criteria for defining valid induction. Therefore, he con- GIScience is a fast developing field with fuzzy boundaries,
cludes that induction may be considered as a meta-physi- that there is a not very clear understanding of what it is
cal principle, “namely something beyond physics” (Born and that many scientists may use other terminology when
1949,7) using core concepts of GIScience. We tried to analyze this
In this context, one could argue that a discipline which dynamic field on the basis of scientific literature and to
is based on inductive principles may be more suited within assess the multidisciplinary and multiparadigmatic nature
the realm of the humanities, rather than the natural of GIScience. The first part seems to be easy: counting
sciences. As defined by Longmans Dictionary of publications and citations. Yet, when a field misses clear
Contemporary English, Science is “knowledge about the common and widely agreed definitions, clear terminolo-
world, especially based on examining, testing, and prov- gies and an understanding of core concepts, an attempt to
ing facts.” In this sense, one would expect a field consid- count publications with certain words in them may be too
ered as a science to work in a deductive manner, that is, straightforward and maybe flawed.
formulating theories and hypotheses and then examining, This article suggests a pluralistic, complex, and multi-
testing, and proving these in order to be able to either paradigmatic vision of GIScience. We are aware that there
confirm or reject them. are limits to this thought. The validity of our conclusions
If we think about the processes which take place in mainly depends on the key peer-reviewed literature iden-
GIScience, however, it becomes evident that it does tified. There is a danger that this view is biased toward
indeed – at least partially – implement an inductive work- opinions in highly developed countries and articles written
flow. GIScience develops methodologies to address pro- in English language only. We may miss aspects which
blems or research challenges which arise as a result of the would arise from a multi-cultural, multi-lingual perspec-
emergence of new GIS tools and technologies (Haklay tive. One of the main lessons we draw from this investiga-
2012). These methodologies may then in turn lead to the tion is that GIScience is undergoing a rather dynamic
development of a founded theoretical understanding of nonlinear process of change than a rational and linear
both the technologies themselves, as well as the impacts one. But we believe that such a change is needed.
these have on society (Haklay 2012). For example, Today’s “big problems” are complex, data-intensive, and
GIScience addresses issues of ethics and privacy, which often require to work collaboratively to solve such com-
emerged as a direct result of the development and imple- plex problems. Such collaboration requires low latency
mentation of GI-Software. The issue of ethics and privacy information exchange and a certain degree of common
were addressed in both the research agenda by the UCGIS, understanding of the methods and tools used.
as well as that by Michael Goodchild and therefore seems When we conclude that GIScience is a multidisciplin-
to be a key theme of GIScience. ary and multiparadigmatic field, then the exact boundaries
For this reason, we herein argue that GIScience cannot to other disciplines are less relevant. It is sometimes
soley be considered as a natural “hard” science. Rather its believed that this is generally true in an era when science
close ties to the humanities must be acknowledged, both is more and more collaborative and multidisciplinary (e.g.,
on the basis of its inductive nature and on the basis of its Couclelis 2012). Reitsma (2013) argues that the domain
thematic links to social science disciplines. However, cer- addressed by GIScience is nevertheless well-defined and
tain other branches of GIScience most certainly have a persistent and that therefore GIScience is unlikely to be
place within the “hard” sciences, as demonstrated by absorbed into one of its intersecting disciplines: geogra-
Reitsma (2013) and Goodchild (2004b). This leads us to phy, computer science, or information science. Being a
conclude that GIScience is of dichotomic nature, rather multidisciplinary and multiparadigmatic field may bear a
than being a coherent whole, which can be placed under potential for interaction with a broader domain of spatial
the umbrella term of “science” or “humanity.” information sciences but faces the risk to be not flagged
 Cartography and Geographic Information Science 211

out well enough for funding agencies, education evalua- Blaschke, T., K. Donert, F. Gossette, S. Kienberger, M. Marani,
tion systems, and other kind of peer reviews, which often S. Qureshi, and D. Tiede. 2012. “Virtual Globes: Serving
Science and Society.” Information 3: 372–390. doi:10.3390/
relay on predefined categories. In fact, the linkage of
info3030372.
research and education programmers coupled with respon- Blaschke, T., and C. Eisank. 2012. “How Influential is Giscience?”
sibility for outreach and professional education is increas- In Proceedings of Giscience 2012, 7th International
ingly relevant to the instructional component of output and Conference on Geographic Information Science, edited by N.
a defining characteristic of the particular higher education Xiao, M.-P. Kwan, and H. Lin. Columbus, OH: Springer.
Blaschke, T., G. J. Hay, M. Kelly, S. Lang, P. Hofmann, E.
institution. Programs which are clearly “earmarked” in
Addink, R. Feitosa, et al. 2014. “Geographic Object-based
respect to recognizable disciplines may have advantages Image Analysis – Towards A New Paradigm.” ISPRS
in a competitive higher education market. In addition, Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 87 (1):
when concluding that GIScience is a multidisciplinary 180–191. doi:10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2013.09.014.
and multiparadigmatic field which is strongly related to Blaschke, T., and J. Strobl. 2010. “Geographic Information
Science Developments.” GisScience Zeitschrift Für
ICT developments including sensors, the Internet of
Geoinformatik 23 (1): 9–15.
Things, or big data analytics, fundamental questions Blaschke, T., J. Strobl, and K. Donert. 2011. “Geographic
about emerging technologies need to be formulated. Information Science: Building a Doctoral Programme
GIScience needs to keep up with such developments so Integrating Interdisciplinary Concepts and Methods.”
that GIScientists can ask questions about the spatiotem- Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 21: 139–146.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.07.013.
poral representations that are needed. They need to criti-
Blaschke, T., J. Strobl, L. Schrott, R. Marschallinger, F.
cally reflect and engage. This may make them distinct Neubauer, A. Koch, E. Beinat, et al. 2012. “Geographic
from, for example, computer science. Information Science as a Common Cause for
The co-existence of sets of distinctive portfolios of Interdisciplinary Research.” In Bridging the Geographic
methods and practices in GIScience also reveals that Information Sciences. Springer Lecture Notes in
Geoinformation and Cartography, edited by J. Gensel, D.
Kuhn’s model of normal science interrupted by occasional
Josselin, and D. Vandenbroucke, 411–427. Berlin: Springer.
revolutions may not be relevant. Nevertheless, such an Born, M. 1949. Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance.
argumentation which favors disciplinary recognisability Oxford: Clarendon Press.
is too short-minded. New fields such as neurosciences or Butler, D. 2006. “Virtual Globes: The Web-Wide World.” Nature
nanotechnologies would not have gained so much interest. 439: 776–778. doi:10.1038/439776a.
Caron, C., S. Roche, D. Goyer, and A. Jaton. 2008. “Giscience
The key might be the public recognition of “the Geo-
Journals Ranking and Evaluation: An International Delphi
domain.” Even the big players like Google help to pro- Study.” Transactions in GIS 12 (3): 293–321. doi:10.1111/
mote the GIScience field – or open up the ground for it to j.1467-9671.2008.01106.x.
develop further. We may conclude that one of the most Chrisman, N. R. 2005. “Full Circle: More than Just Social
problematic issues remaining is the naming dilemma: is it Implications of GIS.” Cartographica: The International
Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization
GIScience, geospatial science, Geoinformatics,
40 (4): 23–35. doi:10.3138/8U64-K7M1-5XW3-2677.
Geocomputation, or may we come up with another term Chrisman, N. R. 2012. “A Deflationary Approach to
every few years? Naming and branding may be more Fundamental Principles in Giscience.” In Are There
important as many scientists think, for instance, when Fundamental Principles in Geographic Information
dealing with research funding organizations. Even more Science. Tobler Lecture Event 2012, edited by F. J. Harvey,
42–64. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
subtle, we may not be able to define the “we,” that is, we
https://www.createspace.com/3932452
will not be able to define the community and to tell others Clarke, K. C. 1997. Getting Started with Geographic
who “we” are if we (sic!) are not able to speak with a Information Systems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
unified voice. Couclelis, H. 2012. “Climbing on a Milestone for a Better View:
Goodchild’s ‘Geographical Information Science’ Paper as
Vantage Point and Ground for Reflection.” International
Journal of Geographical Information Science 26 (12):
References 2291–2300. doi:10.1080/13658816.2012.713959.
Aitken, S., and M. P. Kwan. 2010. “GIS as Qualitative Research: Craglia, M., M. F. Goodchild, A. Annoni, G. Camara, M. Gould,
Knowledge, Participatory Research, and the Politics of W. Kuhn, and D. Mark, et al. 2008. “Next-Generation
Affect.” In Handbook of Qualitative Geography, edited by Digital Earth: A Position Paper from the Vespucci Initiative
D. DeLyser, S. Herbert, S. Aitken, M. Crang, and L. for the Advancement of Geographic Information Science.”
McDowell, 287–304. London: SAGE. International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures
Anselin, L. 1988. Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models. Research 3: 146–167.
Vol. 4. Berlin: Springer. Crampton, J. W. 2009. “Cartography: Maps 2.0.” Progress in Human
Atzmanstorfer, K., and T. Blaschke. 2013. “Geospatial Web: A Geography 33 (1): 91–100. doi:10.1177/0309132508094074.
Tool to Support the Empowerment of Citizens through E- Crampton, J. W. 2010. Mapping: A Critical Introduction to
Participation?” In Handbook of Research on E-Planning: Cartography and GIS. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Icts for Urban Development and Monitoring, edited by C. Crampton, J. W., M. Graham, A. Poorthuis, T. Shelton, M.
Nunes Silva, 144–171. Hershey, PA: IGI-Global. Stephens, M. W. Wilson, and M. Zook. 2013. “Beyond the
212 T. Blaschke and H. Merschdorf

Geotag: Situating “Big Data” and Leveraging the Potential of Harvey, F. 2013. “A New Age of Discovery: The Post-Gis Era.”
the Geoweb.” Cartography and Geographic Information In Gi_Forum 2013. Creating the Gisociety, edited by T.
Science 40 (2): 130–139. doi:10.1080/15230406.2013.777137. Jekel, A. Car, J. Strobl, and G. Griesebner, 272–281.
Egenhofer, M. J., and R. D. Franzosa. 1991. “Point-Set Berlin: Wichmann-Verlag.
Topological Spatial Relations.” International Journal of Harvey, F., and N. R. Chrisman. 2004. “The Imbrication of
Geographical Information Systems 5 (2): 161–174. Geography and Technology: The Social Construction of
doi:10.1080/02693799108927841. Geographic Information Systems.” In Geography and
Elwood, S., M. F. Goodchild, and D. Z. Sui. 2012. “Researching Technology, edited by S. D. Brunn, S. L. Cutter, and J. W.
Volunteered Geographic Information: Spatial Data, Harrington, 65–80. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Geographic Research, and New Social Practice.” Annals of Harvey, F. J. 2012. (ed.). Are There Fundamental Principles in
the Association of American Geographers 102 (3): 571–590. Geographic Information Science. Tobler Lecture Event 2012.
doi:10.1080/00045608.2011.595657. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, United States,
Fischer, F. 2012. “Geotagging and the City – Understanding the pp. 100. https://www.createspace.com/3932452
Use of Social Location Applications in Urban Space.” PhD Jantsch, E. 1972. “Towards Interdisciplinarity and
thesis, Paris-Lodron University Salzburg. Transdisciplinarity in Education and Innovation.” In
Fisher, P. 2001. “Citations to the International Journal of Interdisciplinarity: Problems of Teaching and Research in
Geographical Information Systems and Science: The First 10 Universities, edited by OECD, 97–121. Paris: OECD/CERI.
Years.” International Journal of Geographical Information Kemp, K., W. Kuhn, and C. Brox. 2012. “A Delphi Survey to
Science 15: 1–6. doi:10.1080/13658810109699908. Rate Giscience Publication Outlet.” In Multidisciplinary
Frank, A. U. 2012. “GIS Theory – the Fundamental Principles in Research on Geographical Information in Europe and
Giscience: A Mathematical Approach.” In Are There Beyond Proceedings of the AGILE’2012 International
Fundamental Principles in Geographic Information Conference on Geographic Information Science, edited
Science. Tobler Lecture Event 2012, edited by F. J. Harvey, by J. Gensel, D. Josselin, and D. Vandenbroucke,
12–41. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. 268–271. Avignon: Institute of Electrical and Electronics
https://www.createspace.com/3932452 Engineers.
Gioia, D. A., and E. Pitre. 1990. “Multiparadigm Perspectives on Kuhn, T. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Chicago,
Theory Building.” The Academy of Management Review IL: University of Chicago Press.
15 (4): 584–602. Kwan, M.-P. 2012. “The Uncertain Geographic Context
Goodchild, M. F. 1991. “Geographic Information Systems.” Problem.” Annals of the Association of American
Progress in Human Geography 15 (2): 194–200. Geographers 102 (5): 958–968. doi:10.1080/
Goodchild, M. F. 1992. “Geographical Information Science.” 00045608.2012.687349.
International Journal of Geographical Information Systems Leetaru, K. H., S. Wang, A. Padmanabhan, E. Shook,
6: 31–45. doi:10.1080/02693799208901893. and E. Schook. 2013. “Mapping the Global Twitter
Goodchild, M. F. 2004a. “Giscience, Geography, Form, and Heartbeat: The Geography of Twitter.” First Monday,
Process.” Annals of the Association of American 18 (5). http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/
Geographers 94: 709–714. view/4366/3654#author. doi:10.5210/fm.v18i5.4366.
Goodchild, M. F. 2004b. “The Validity and Usefulness of Laws Leszczynski, A. 2009a. “Poststructuralism and GIS: Is There a
in Geographic Information Science and Geography.” Annals ‘Disconnect’?” Environment and Planning D: Society and
of the Association of American Geographers 94: 300–303. Space 27: 581–602. doi:10.1068/d1607.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.2004.09402008.x. Leszczynski, A. 2009b. “Quantitative Limits to Qualitative
Goodchild, M. F. 2006. “Giscience Ten Years after Ground Engagements: GIS, Its Critics, and the Philosophical
Truth.” Transactions in GIS 10 (5): 687–692. doi:10.1111/ Divide.” The Professional Geographer 61 (3): 350–365.
j.1467-9671.2006.01022.x. doi:10.1080/00330120902932026.
Goodchild, M. F. 2007a. “Citizens as Sensors: The World of Li, L., and M. F. Goodchild. 2012. “Constructing Places from Spatial
Volunteered Geography.” Geojournal 69 (4): 211–221. Footprints.” In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGSPATIAL
doi:10.1007/s10708-007-9111-y. International Workshop on Crowdsourced and Volunteered
Goodchild, M. F. 2007b. “Geography prospers from GIS.” Geographic Information, 15–21. New York: ACM.
ArcWatch, April. http://www.esri.com/news/arcwatch/0407/ Liu, S., and L. Palen. 2010. “The New Cartographers: Crisis
feature.html. Map Mashups and the Emergence of Neogeographic
Goodchild, M. F. 2008. “Commentary: Whither VGI? Whither Practice.” Cartography and Geographic Information
VGI?” Geojournal 72: 239–244. doi:10.1007/s10708-008- Science 37: 69–90. doi:10.1559/152304010790588098.
9190-4. Longley, P. A., M. F. Goodchild, D. J. Maguiere, and D. W.
Goodchild, M. F. 2009. “Geographic Information Systems and Rhind. 2005. Geographic Information Systems and Science.
Science: Today and Tomorrow.” Annals of GIS 15 (1): 3–9. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.
doi:10.1080/19475680903250715. Mark, D. M. 2003. “Geographic Information Science: Defining
Goodchild, M. F. 2010. “Twenty Years of Progress: Giscience in the Field.” In Foundations of Geographic Information
2010.” Journal of Spatial Information Science 1: 3–20. Science, edited by M. Duckham, M. F. Goodchild, and M.
Goodchild, M. F., and J. A. Glennon. 2010. “Crowdsourcing F. Worboys, 3–18. London: Taylor & Francis.
Geographic Information for Disaster Response: A Research Openshaw, S. 1991. “A View on the GIS Crisis in Geography, or,
Frontier.” International Journal of Digital Earth 3: 231–241. Using GIS to Put Humpty-Dumpty Back Together Again.”
doi:10.1080/17538941003759255. Environment and Planning A 23: 621–628.
Haklay, M. 2012. “Geographic Information Science: Tribe, Parr, D. A., and Y. Lu. 2010. “The Landscape of Giscience
Badge and Sub-Discipline.” Transactions of the Institute of Publications 1997–2007: An Empirical Investigation with
British Geographers 37: 477–481. doi:10.1111/j.1475- Latent Semantic Analysis.” Transactions in GIS 14: 689–
5661.2012.00541.x. 708. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9671.2010.01228.x.
 Cartography and Geographic Information Science 213

Pavlovskaya, M. 2006. “Theorizing with GIS: A Tool for Critical of the Association of American Geographers 94: 269–277.
Geographies?” Environment and Planning A 38 (11): 2003– doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.2004.09402003.x.
2020. doi:10.1068/a37326. Sui, D. Z., and D. deLyser. 2012. “Crossing the Qualitative–
Raper, J. 2009. “Geographical Information Science.” In Annual Quantitative Chasm I: Hybrid Geographies, the Spatial Turn,
Review of Information Science and Technology, edited by B. and Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI).” Progress
Cronin, Vol. 43, 1–117. Medford, NJ: Information Today. in Human Geography 36 (1): 111–124. doi:10.1177/
Reitsma, F. 2013. “Revisiting the ‘Is Giscience a Science?’ 0309132510392164.
Debate (or Quite Possibly Scientific Gerrymandering).” Takhteyev, Y., A. Gruzd, and B. Wellman. 2012. “Geography of
International Journal of Geographical Information Science Twitter Networks.” Social Networks 34 (1): 73–81.
27 (2): 211–221. doi:10.1080/13658816.2012.674529. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2011.05.006.
Repko, A. F. 2008. Interdisciplinary Research: Process and Taylor, P. J., and M. Overton. 1991. “Further Thoughts on
Theory. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Geography and GIS: A Preemptive Strike?” Environment
Richardson, D. B. 2013. “Real-Time Space–Time Integration in and Planning A 23: 1087–1094.
GIScience and Geography: Space–Time Integration in Tress, B., G. Tress, and G. Fry. 2003. “Potential and Limitations
Geography and GIScience.” Annals of the Association of of Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Landscape
American Geographers 103 (5): 1062–1071. Studies.” In Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity in
Sarton, G. 1929/1959. “Science in the Renaissance.” In The Landscape Studies: Potential and Limitations, edited by B.
Civilization of the Renaissance, edited by J. W. Thompson, G. Tress, G. Tress, A. Van der Valk, and G. Frey, 182–192.
Rowley, F. Schevill, and G. Sarton, 75–95. New York: Un-gar. Delta Series No. 2. Wageningen: Delta Program.
Schuurman, N. 2000. “Trouble in the Heartland: GIS and Its Tsou, M. H., and M. Leitner. 2013. “Visualization of Social
Critics in the 1990s.” Progress in Human Geography 24: Media: Seeing A Mirage or a Message?” Cartography and
569–590. doi:10.1191/030913200100189111. Geographic Information Science 40 (2): 55–60. doi:10.1080/
Schuurman, N. 2006. “Formalization Matters: Critical GIS and 15230406.2013.776754.
Ontology Research.” Annals of the Association of American UCGIS. 1996. “Research Priorities of the University Consortium
Geographers 96: 726–739. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.2006. for Geographic Information Science.” Cartography and
00513.x. Geographic Information Systems 23 (3): 115–127.
Schuurman, N., and A. Leszczynski. 2006. “Ontology-Based Weaver, G., and D. Gioia. 1994. “Paradigms Lost:
Metadata.” Transactions in GIS 10: 709–726. doi:10.1111/ Incommensurability vs Structurationist Inquiry.”
j.1467-9671.2006.01024.x. Organization Studies 15 (4): 565–589. doi:10.1177/
Stamos, D. N. 2007. “Popper, Laws, and the Exclusion of 017084069401500404.
Biology from Genuine Science.” Acta Biotheoretica 55: Wright, D. J., M. F. Goodchild, and J. D. Proctor. 1997.
357–375. doi:10.1007/s10441-007-9025-6. “Demystifying the Persistent Ambiguity of GIS as ‘Tool’
Stefanidis, A., A. Crooks, and J. Radzikowski. 2012. Versus ‘Science’.” Annals of the Association of American
“Harvesting Ambient Geospatial Information from Social Geographers 87: 346–362. doi:10.1111/0004-
Media Feeds.” Geojournal 78 (2): 1–20. 5608.872057.
Sui, D. Z. 1994. “GIS and Urban Studies: Positivism, Post- Zook, M., M. Graham, T. Shelton, and S. Gorman. 2010.
Positivism, and Beyond.” Urban Geography 15: 258–278. “Volunteered Geographic Information and Crowdsourcing
doi:10.2747/0272-3638.15.3.258. Disaster Relief: A Case Study of the Haitian Earthquake.”
Sui, D. Z. 2004. “Tobler’s First Law of Geography: A Big Idea World Medical and Health Policy 2: 6–32. doi:10.2202/
for A Small World? A Big Idea for A Small World?” Annals 1948-4682.1069.