Is GIS a Science?
The importance of the reproducibility and replicability of scientific studies is emerging more frequently into public discourse across various scientific disciplines. With science aiming to uncover new discoveries of universal truths about the world, a lack of reproducibility of a scientific study indicates that whatever truth was “discovered” might not actually be universally accepted. A report from the National Academies of Science Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) called “Reproducibility and Replicability in Science” brings up a fascinating point about the importance of initial irreproducibility in how it creates excitement (NASEM 37). While I do agree that the publishing of a finding that is new, exciting, and has never been done before is important for the further development of scientific knowledge, if it remains unreproduceable then such excitement can pose a threat to the scientific community. I have come across many studies in my research that at first seem too good to be true in the groundbreaking discoveries they claim to be making until I discover that it is one of a kind and is structured around a small sample size or purely qualitative data.
While contemplating what defines something as being a science, it is hard for me to see GIS alone as a science with how I have used it in the past. Even when describing what my environmental geography degree is to others, I simply say that environmental studies is the field that I would like to focus on and geography is the tool that I am learning to do work with the natural environment. In that sense, I feel like I have predominantly used GIS as a tool rather than a science. The Wright et al 1997 piece, “Demystifying the Persistent Ambiguity of GIS as ‘Tool’ versus ‘Science’,” brought up the interesting point that if doing geography is a science then doing GIS is also a science, which does not directly declare GIS as a science, but I would agree that to say I have not felt like I was doing science with my GIS work would feel ingenuine (349). One of the points that I enjoyed the most further along in this article was “For the scientist using it, it is a tool, for the producer of GIS, it is the engineering of a tool, for the scientist extending GIS, it is science (Sandhu 1993b, 3 Nov.10:27 PST)” (351). Due to the inherently expanding nature of GIS as a field, GIS cannot simply be viewed as a tool in the same way as a physical instrument like a sextant can be. The degree to which GIS is a science, separated from the science of geography, depends on the context of how it is being worked with. To a student like me, GIS will most likely be used as a tool, but to someone who is extending GIS to test hypotheses about itself and further the growth of GIS into new disciplines and applications it should most certainly be considered a science. I will admit that it is hard for me to argue for GIS being a science without yet having the experience of actually extending GIS.
This range of GIS is highlighted clearly by Martin et al. 2007 through a list of four themes in GIS discourse:
- Singular technology
- Progressing along a linear path
- Inherently expansive and growing
- Universally applicable
Looking at these four themes of GIS discourse, the first two themes made me slightly uneasy, while the last two themes resonated with what attracted me to the technology. I do not agree that GIS is singular especially when it comes to open source GIS. The beauty of open-source GIS is that it is a collective collaboration to develop and advance GIS as a tool/science. Additionally, in that sense, due to its collaborative nature, its progress cannot always be linear. Perhaps, it could always be seen as advancing but with processes of peer review and revision, it is hard for me to describe that advancement simply as linear. The ever-expanding nature and universal application of GIS, however, are definitely two aspects of GIS that make it appealing to me as a field that has such potential for growth and impact.
Additional References: 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