Geophysics vs. Geography: Divergent Viewpoints on the GeoWeb
November 14th, 2008by Sean Gorman
I came across two different articles yesterday that really highlighted the difference in reception the GeoWeb has received within academia. The first was a pointer to a track on “Visualizing Scientific Data Using KML and Virtual Globes” at the American Geophysical Union meeting this December. In addition Google is sponsoring a competition on how researchers are using KML to share their data and findings as part of the conference.
So what is the connection between virtual globes and geophysics:
“Presentations include development using Google Earth and Maps, NASA World Wind, Microsoft Virtual Earth and GigaPan technology for a mixture of science, outreach and education. Uses of Keyhole Markup Language (KML) will be highlighted by projects in the fields of Atmospheric Science, Cryosphere Studies, Environmental Impacts, Geology, Oceanography, Planetary Science, Seismology and Volcanology.”
You can see snazzy graphics and titles for each presentation here.
Now contrast this embrace of the GeoWeb/neogeography with this quote from the latest edition of ArcNews from one of geography’s luminaries, Michael Goodchild:
“In 2005, Google Earth was released, and people with little or no background in GIS, geography, or cartography began using it and other similar services to discover the power of map making. Some even began calling themselves neogeographers. Suddenly it was possible to do some powerful things with geospatial data without committing to what was often a difficult and lengthy learning process….But mistakes (by neogeographers) were and are being made, as often happens when powerful technology is put in the hands of people with little background in its underlying concepts and little experience in thinking critically about its products.”
From my experience there is a lot of cross over between geography and geophysics especially when it comes to physical geography. Academics from both disciplines frequently publish in each others journals, yet we see polar opposite responses to the same technology. At the AGU meeting the keynote is from Michael Jones of Google, and at the AAG meeting one of the big sessions will be, “Is Google Good for Geography?“. I would love to hear folks thoughts as to why this is. To stir the pot I’ll throw out a few incendiary ideas that can be shot down or supported:
1) It is all about who butters the bread. Google is buttering the geophysicist’s bread and ESRI is buttering the geographer’s bread.
2) The discipline of geography is xenophobic. The neo vs. paleo debate is not unique. In the late nineties economist Paul Krugman wrote a book on “economic geography” that was attacked across the geographic discipline. Guess what Paul Krugman just won the 2008 Nobel Prize for “International Trade and Economic Geography“.
3) Geophysicists have no appreciation for spatial theory. Spinny globes look cool who cares if it is misrepresenting the spatial accuracy or scale of the data.
4) No one will accept the fact they are all just technology tools that can be used well or poorly, no matter how easy or hard they are to use in the first place.
This is sure to get me disliked by everyone, so feel free to add to the list or just shoot it full of holes.
Popularity: 10% [?]
November 14th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Sean,
Great post on a topic that’s been on my mind for yonks.
Sure, I think mistakes are being made, and will continue to be made regardless of professional orientation. FWIW, I’ve seen trained geographers/GIS professionals make mistakes, too.
I also have a great deal of respect for Goodchild’s body of work and the many contributions he’s made to the field. And I think he’s right to keep a critical eye on the community at large. Regardless of professional orientation, we all benefit from constructive dialog.
It seems to me that the tension is, -at the risk of oversimplifying, between ’scientific’ and ‘journalistic’ communities. My own belief is that Google (and Yahoo and MS) is generally good for geography in that it raises public awareness and brings geography within the reach of the unwashed masses. And perhaps that’s exactly what it will take to bring them to the doorstep of spatial theory.
November 14th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Hi Sean,
Nice post. I’d like to throw my 2 cents in.
First full disclosure – I’m the lead convener of the AGU session described in your post.
Further disclosure – If we’re creating a Geographers vs. Geophysicists separation, then I live in the thin gray line in between. I don’t consider myself a GIS expert, but I do teach about neogeography, for a Geography department. I also undertake geologic and geophysical research, primarily remote sensing based, in the field of volcanology.
My personal emphasis when it comes to Virtual Globes is that they are great for education and outreach. Anything that helps create a better sense amongst the so called “masses” of what the world looks like and where things are located is in my opinion, a good thing. However, I would be first to recognize the limitations of these tools.
Like the gentleman above, I too have a great respect for Dr Goodchild’s career contributions, but I feel in this instance he’s being somewhat elitist by suggesting “Geophysicists have no appreciation for spatial theory”. That’s like saying Geographers have no true understanding of real Earth Science. I do not accept that either of these statements to be true.
I also disagree that “no one will accept the fact they are all just technology tools”. I think/believe/hope this is exactly what so called-expects and people in general will accept. Ultimately the tools are only as good as the person that uses them, be they Geographer, Geophysicist or Joe Public. And I don’t necessarily think that a lack of expertise in spatial theory automatically means they will/do use these tools incorrectly.
Cheers
John
November 15th, 2008 at 11:28 am
My sense is that most of these question–and amusing provocations–miss the important themes of what has happened over the last four years.
First, in the six thousand years preceding the launch of Google Earth (nee Keyhole, and the Google Maps satellite view) there was a global public disinterest in geography. From the day of our launch to the present there has been an explosion of popular interest in geography and mapping (home use, TV shows, news, etc.), personal Earth exploration (there is our house!), layered web services via the Maps API; and the introduction of competitive commercial products (Microsoft), efforts by established leaders (ESRI), and grass-roots development by the open source community (World Wind) to do something similar all seemingly encouraged by our work. How can this not be great for Geography?
Secondly, this about face in public interest in geography has created a growing appetite for and appreciation of geographic presentation of data. Apartment seekers now examine to heat maps for availability and pricing, police agencies post daily crime maps, the public even accepts color-coded reporting of real-time traffic information layers superimposed on a base map as “normal” — even on wireless mobile phones. Surely this is developing a broad competence in cartographic interpretation that was not there four years ago. Such new skills are accompanied by parallel growth in the public’s ability to manipulate maps as well. As one instance, the pinch-zoom on the Google Maps iPhone client is now second nature to iPhone users, as is the “tilt the phone to tilt the Earth” metaphor of Google Earth on iPhone. How can this not be great for Geography?
Finally, the truth about change, and sudden change most of all, is that it threatens preexisting comfort and experience. It is not certain that the experts of the former age will be the experts of the new one. It may even be that the skills of the former age have less respect in the new one. On example is seen in typesetting. The introduction of “desk-top publishing” changed the traditional typesetting industry forever. The pervasiveness of Microsoft Word and browser-rendered HTML has made the printed word ugly by comparison to the high standards formerly common in typography. On the other hand, there has been an explosion in 30 years of personal computing and 10 years of the Internet that amply rewards in content for what was lost in style. And what was lost was not actually lost. Typesetting remains a skilled profession and well-designed texts remain beautiful. It is just that they are lost in the sea of new content that empowers out modern age.
This is what I think as I read the comments above. I imagine geo “typographers” shaking their fists in horror as happy users and scientists beaver away at “desktop cartography” — producing “substandard” works for a new and thousand or million times larger audience. I see the tension, and appreciate the angst, but sill I must ask, how can this not be great for Geography?
November 15th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Sean,
I would like to point out that a central technical challenge - statistically valid geospatial data integration - is currently the key contribution made by cartographers/geographers. There is however a pressing requirements for geospatial integration on-demand. In some sense, by creating a global basemap, virtual globes by-pass some of the need, or perceived need, to undertake valid data conflation. An argument against this approach by geographers is valid however the argument against the GIS approach is also valid. Inevitably what we now term as GIS must be superseded by a new solution.
Snipits from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency :
“Just as defining GEOINT served as our beacon over the past decade, ‘integration’ must become our rallying cry for the future. Internally, we must press for innovation in fusing all sources and types of GEOINT. Externally, we must create interface points for fusing GEOINT with the capabilities and products of our partner agencies across the Intelligence Community to handle and analyze the future volume, velocity and variety of information at our disposal“
“The simple “data integration by spatial coregistration” standard that is the foundation of GIS needs to be superseded by the placement of data into a time-space framework, with data elements being able to take the form of objects or features rather than components of a static map or image…”
“When working in near or actual real time, there is no time to wait for multiple forms of intelligence (MULTI-INT) to become integrated through conversion to GIS layers, nor will the intelligence demands of tomorrow fit into this simple model. Integration is indeed one of the central challenges.”
Michael Goodchild and others are now calling for a renewed effort towards a Digital Earth http://ijsdir.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.php/ijsdir/article/viewFile/119/99. The GeoWeb if anything must provide a mechanism for a Digital Earth. I believe a key capability is that location relevant data of all and any form must be capable of being published directly as single source streams from the data creator to the end user. The infrastructure of the GeoWeb must give the end user the ability to search and discover, combine, visualize and analyse multi sources of geodata.
I suggest embracing the future…A robust new approach to geospatial encoding that allows statistically valid geodata integration on the fly is a solution to this “geospatial grand challenge”. This is of course will also present a real threat to traditional approaches and GIS far stronger than mashup and neogeography.
Geographers should understand that they are a middle-person bottleneck in the process – they currently do the “search and discover, combine, visualize and analyse multi sources of geodata” and are therefore vulnerable and very prone to future disruption.
Ironically, the future solution may also allow the expert to regain some standing as the champion of the many perfected single source streams of geodata that will become increasingly in demand – certified and stamped, ready for end users.
November 16th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Thanks for all the great replies. Looks like stirring the pot resulted in some very thoughtful responses. My purpose in writing the post was to see if I could get some clarity on what I think is an artificial divide between neogeography and what we facetiously call paleogeography.
While I think there is plenty of room for critical thought on the implications of neogeography and all the innovations wrapped around it I have to agree with Michael Jones this is one of the best opportunities to educate the public on geography and all the theory and thought that underpins it in a century at least (if not 6000 years ;-).
I don’t think it is going to mean the end of GIS professional or cartography - they won’t be the “typographers” of he 21st century. I do believe it means the profession will evolve rapidly, but it will only mean a greater demand for people who understand spatial theory and not only how to effectively convey information through maps, but build technology to allow the unwashed masses to so as well. The profession is already adapting and evolving.
The work of Mark Harrower’s team from Axis Maps/Wisco is ground breaking and inspriring in how they are bringing the concepts and art of cartography to the public. They are equally motivated by the design and visualziation work of Tom and Mike at Stamen. Tehy are all positive feedback loops going from neo to paleo creating a dynamic fusion that will further help us realize both Michael Jones and Mike Goodchild’s vision of the future. It will be fun to see how the two evolve and fuse into one, and I definitely do not believe they are mutually exclusive.
best,
sean
November 16th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
This argument/discussion seems to be a repeat of what has happened before in other fields. Some encyclopedia authors undoubtedly complained that non-experts were writing wikipedia entries, some travel agents warned that only they could get you the best tickets, and some journalists warned about taking blog content seriously since the bloggers didn’t have a journalism background.
And sure, there were undoubtedly cases of newcomers making ‘mistakes’ and creating data that was less accurate than their established predecessors. But there are probably far more cases of useful wikipedia entries, faster and cheaper airline reservations, and useful news reporting from a variety of viewpoints.
In all of these cases the established experts first complained, then either adapted or perished. I think that the geography example is pretty similar.
What I think is really exciting is a related (and somewhat parallel) trend of increased transparency of the tools and products. In wikipedia you can see which authors contributed, what they contributed, and when they contributed it. You can use kayak to compare multiple airlines to see what they are currently charging and how that has changed over time. You can see what bloggers are saying about geography vs. neogeography and contribute to the discussion if you want, rather than waiting for a journalist to tell you what you should think about the paradigm division.
Full disclosure… I have a PhD in Geography. It wasn’t intentional, it just happened to be the department where quantitative research in earth science was taking place. I have never been to an AAG meeting, but I go the AGU meeting most years. I think that only people who are on one of the fringes care about the geography vs. neogeography debate. Those who play in both worlds find great value (and problems) with both.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Hi Sean,
As one of the co-organizers of the “Is Google Good for Geography” session* I thought I’d weigh in on the discussion. In general, Geographers are very sensitive to the power of the maps which is why we tend to be cautious in thinking about their use.
I think one of the key distinctions is between physical geography (or Geophysics) and human geography. Human geography (as socially constructed rather than a physical process) has a lot more definitional/political issues intertwined with any mapping project. This means that we’re very cognizant of the ways that maps can be use to manipulate, lie and hide things. Even a simple map showing place names (Mt McKinley or Denali?) or borders (take your pick of geo-political conflicts) can contain political decisions. The power to name (or map) is big!
That said, Google has certainly thrown open the door to map making and more importantly the ability to comment on your surroundings (including naming) and share it with the world. This is huge! This is great! But it is not without issues. After all, the composition of the folks making these maps/data have some clear and standard biases, i.e., tending to be from wealthier, younger, techie, etc. backgrounds. This means the mapping will be more reflective of these populations that the population at large…and this divide (or lag) will help to shape what kind of data there is about places.
Then, there’s the whole other issue of how spatial search results are ordered. Right now it is relatively easy (at least in some places) to move something (e.g., a restaurant) up the rankings via SEO techniques. This means that Google’s search algorithm is also a key (and very opaque) actor in how maps are made. Don’t get me wrong, I rely on Google search everyday BUT the inherent nature of ranking is to prioritize some things at the expense of others. Cartographers used to be the ones doing it and now it is Google’s search algorithm. Big (and potentially for good) change. But Google has also been willing to change its search results on the basis of political pressure (e.g., China and censorship – Image search on Tiananmen at google.com and google.cn.
So, I think the technology has great promise but the fundamental issues in mapping (who gets to, what is hidden, what is emphasized, etc.) have not gone away but evolved into new sets of questions/challenges.
Cheers…Matt
p.s. I should also mention that there will be plenty of other sessions exploring the use of Google and Virtual Globes at the AAG conference. We just weren’t part of organizing them.
*The session is really designed to take a look at the positive uses of online mapping (like GoogleMaps) along with the recognition that widespread user generated data and notations is not neutrally distributed across all places or among all peoples. In short, we’re really interested in where, by whom, about what and how the introduction GoogleMaps is producing knowledge about places. Personally I’m primarily interested in how people are using the technology in every day life, i.e., spatial search via Google.
November 17th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Hi Matt,
Great points and all very valid although I’m not sure these are new issues particular to Google et. al. I think they have arisen largely because of the large scale popularity of Google and other GeoWeb applications. The skewed demographic of “wealthier, younger, techie, etc. backgrounds” is not all that different than the typical GIS user’s background. The same biases apply that were already existing in the industry at large.
Ordering of search results has been an issue since Web search began and there have always been socio-political issues behind them whether they are on a map or not. Yahoo! was mapping search results in the late 90’s and no one was making a stink.
I think the title of the session should be is “technology” good for geography because that is what we are fundamentally debating. Google makes for a nice target because of the massive popularity of what they do, but I see few issues that are exclusive to them that were already not resident on the Web in general or the established GIS industry. My personal opinion is that too much emphasis has been placed on critical analysis of technology and not enough on how it can be used to further the goals of geography as a discipline to better inform the public and educate them. The sad truth is 99.9% of the world does not care about the criticism, so while it is appropriate and relevant we risk loosing relevance by letting it dominate the discourse.
Look forward to continuing the fun in Vegas
Beers on me of course for wreaking havoc and being a general nuisance.
best,
sean
November 18th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
[…] Geophysics vs. Geography: Divergent Viewpoints on the GeoWeb […]
November 24th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
[…] With the elections over I’ve had a little time to think about what the new administration could mean for the GeoWeb. For those who follow the GeoWanking list serv there has been a raging debate on neogeography versus paleogeography. Some of the rhetoric reminds me of the just finished election and how we strive to create a binary world - blue state/red state or neo/paleo. In the spirit of moving beyond stereotypes and on to solving problems; I thought a closer look at what the potential impact of Obama’s technology platform on the GeoWeb could be. Might be a good diversion from our own self reflection - despite the fact I’ve added plenty of fuel to that fire […]