Is GIS a Science?

The NASEM defines science as a “mode of inquiry that poses questions about the world.” (NASEM, 22) Involving a process of observation, measurement, analysis, and critical review, science is a way of thinking using core tools and principles. NASEM describes five core principles: “nature is not capricious, knowledge grows through exploration and mutually reinforcing evidence, science is a communal enterprise, science aims for refined degrees of confidence (rather than complete certainty) and scientific knowledge is durable and mutable.” (NASEM, 23) Each of these core principles depends on at least some form of replicability. While replicability reinforces how nature is not capricious, it also strengthens the principles of science being mutually reinforced as well as a communal enterprise. However, I did find the reading’s point that new discoveries are harder to replicate. While complete replicability of everything is not feasible, the role of replicability in scientific exploration and knowledge production is essential.

Before I took any geography classes at Middlebury, I understood GIS as a tool. Especially as a non-geography major, I found it difficult to describe GIS as something else to family and friends who were not familiar with it. After taking GEOG 0120 (Human Geography with GIS) and going through the readings, my understanding of GIS has become both more nuanced and more muddled. Last semester, I worked on a project for a sociology class focused on how Middlebury’s ES department used a science-based curriculum to legitimize itself as a new department (including the use of geography classes). Using document analysis of course catalogs, faculty notes, and speeches from former Middlebury College presidents, I observed how science plays a crucial role in the development of an interdisciplinary academic department. Through that project, I have a better understanding of how the classification of science reflects the sociological understanding of ‘legitimacy’ within academia and also how science plays a role in capital-building within higher education. Especially in a liberal arts context, my understanding of GIS has changed towards it being an evolving scientific/interdisciplinary discipline, yet I have much to learn about it! I hope to expand my perspective around GIS through this course as we discuss and learn about how GIS is both influenced by and influences open science.

My interest in GIS aligns with the themes of “inherently expansive and growing” as well as it being “universally applicable.” (St. Martin and Wing, 341-342) I am drawn to interdisciplinary approaches to learning, so seeing what researchers of all different academic backgrounds using GIS has certainly inspired me to take this class. Particularly with this course focusing on open science, I would like to hear others’ points of view on how open science vs corporate products have influenced GIS as a discipline and/or a tool. From my GEOG 0120 course notes, I learned GIS as a tool and GIScience as the process of building said tool. I would like to know what others in the class (especially as most of you are geography majors) think about those statements.

References

NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). 2019. Reproducibility and Replicability in Science. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. DOI:10.17226/25303

St. Martin, K., and J. Wing. 2007. The discourse and discipline of GIS. Cartographica 42 (3):235–248. DOI:10.3138/carto.42.3.235-248

Wright, D. J., M. F. Goodchild, and J. D. Proctor. 1997. GIS: Tool or science? Demystifying the persistent ambiguity of GIS as “tool” versus “science.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 87 (2):346–362. DOI:10.1111/0004-5608.872057