GIS along the Tool-Science Continuum

As GIS continues to play a prominent role in spatial analysis, it also starts to engage with the more fundamental aspects of modeling spatial phenomena, asking and answering thought-provoking questions, and demonstrating its importance in other disciplines. This growing complexity and sophistication associated with GIS leads to the debate of whether it still remains a tool for research use or becomes a science that itself entails ideas, theories, hypothesis, etc.

Before picking a side in the tool-science debate, it is essential to first outline the justifications of why GIS qualifies as a tool or science. In particular, what are the conditions necessary for the emergence of a science out of tool and what would discourage such emergence?

The tool-science dichotomy

In the article “Demystifying the Persistent Ambiguity of GIS as Tool versus Science”, Wright et al (1997) summarized the contrasting viewpoints regarding the tool-science debate. Proponents of GIS as a tool treat it as a technology or problem-solving environment. To contextualize, this viewpoint emphasizes the practical aspect of GIS: it is an application that one use to assist the study of spatial science. Conversely, proponents of GIS as a science argue that the tool view limits GIS. This is becasue certain practices of GIS involve developing algorithms and proper methodologies to solve spatial problems and applying them to test theories, which fall under the scientific methods.

How different is it between aligning GIS with tool or science? A tool is concrete and contingent, whereas science, recognized as a mode of inquiry that aims to pose questions about the world, better captures the complexity and sophistication of a discipline (NASEM 2019). It seems that certain aspect of GIS could fall into both categories. On one hand, GIS has long been a concrete tool that help researchers address spatial inquires. On the other hand, GIS as a driving technology is of sufficient significance because it entails spatial analytical concepts and sometimes discover truth, which is in league with other hard science.

The tool-science continuum: tool, tool-making, science

In short, the tool-science binary is limited in scope since GIS could not be understood by two distinct positions. We need the scientific knowledge to properly use the tool and the tool allows to better understand a scientific discipline. As such, an alternative approach to properly understand GIS, as mentioned by Wright et al, is to situate it along a tool-science continuum. In doing so, Wright subsequently developed the tool-making perspective as a middle-ground. This perspective is concerned with advancing the tool’s capabilities, regularly promoting the adoption of GIS, and ensuring its responsible use. Indeed, based on many of the work I have done at Middlebury, GIS is not yet a “science”, but definitely “more” than a tool. For example, in GEOG 0120: Human Geography with GIS, we are not only using GIS as a tool for spatial analysis but are also prompted to develop an algorithm (workflow). In GEOG 1026: Visualizing our Future, in addition to producing cartographic layouts using spatial data, we were also asked to use these maps we produce to address sets of planning problems.

That being said, there is not a definite conclusion on whether GIS falls under a tool or science. GIS could be a discourse which includes both the science and tool views. While GIS is flexible along the tool-science continuum, the answer is sometimes contingent upon several factors. As Wright mentioned, this depends on who is involved: developers of GIS see it as a sophisticated science while salesmen and students recognize it as a tool. On top of that, I believe that one’s personal experience with GIS could also play a role as in introductory level geography classes, students are introduced to GIS merely as problem solving tool. Yet, as we dive deeper to explore more functionalities of GIS on various platforms so as to develop reproducible/replicable studies in this class, we gradually came to see why GIS could stand alone as a discipline/science. As such, in the next blog post, let’s dive into another fundamental componet aspect of the course: the reproducibility and replicability of GIS research.

===

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

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

===

Xianju, Taizhou, China (07/05/19)

Hmm I cannot see anything ahead
Is that a tool or a science?

Back to Main Page