Volunteered Geographic Information

Figure 1: Backcover of Qualitative GIS, delineated into 3 sections: a, b & c.

Perhaps it is uncommon to use an image of the backcover of a book in a review, as opposed to the front, however in this case it is fruitful. I have split the backcover of ‘Qualitative GIS’ into 3 sections (figure 1) each of which says something important about what it is the book does, or why it was written. The first section, a, is a comment from Eric Sheppard in which he describes the book as ‘definitive’, fundamentally he is right and I’ll discuss why he is right at the end. Section c deals with who the book is aimed at, and I’ll give my interpretation of this after we deal with section b.

Section b gives an indication of what the reader is to expect in this book, and surely the weight of expectation for such an ambitious publication is high. The broad strokes of the title – qualitative GIS- mean we have to ask, is this the critical GIS manifesto? Is this finally GIS reconsidered and emerging from the shadow of ‘Ground Truth’ (Pickles, 1995)? And, in light of numerous recent papers on critical GIS, qualitative GIS and non-quantitative GIS; is this the defining text-book? Well, no, not exactly. If anything this book constitutes a progress report, because fundamentally we haven’t yet arrived at a ‘qualitative GIS’. As noted in the introduction by Elwood and Cope this book should be seen as a framework, and as a spur for research going forward. Thus section b which subsets the book into: representations; analytical interventions and innovations; and conceptual engagements; is no less a structure than a suggestion- at most a research agenda.

It is with this approach that we can best understand this book, no section is intended to exhibit completeness, rather each contributed paper is an experiment in (re)making, engaging with, or retooling GIS qualitatively. The first section, dealing with representation, is perhaps the most surprising, there is no direct challenge to pre-existing methods of representation in GIS, rather the discussion of representation deals with imbuing existing structures with multiplicities. Such an approach constitutes what Elwood describes as ‘representational flexibility’ and the ability to see data structures and methods differently rather than recode them. This approach is evident in Schuurman’s chapter looking to integrate qualitative data into metadata, as well as Corbett and Rambaldi’s, and Elwood’s chapters which highlight the role of communities and local production of cartographic or geographic knowledge. This is a pleasing perspective from my point of view; I never really bought into the need to develop a new GIS₂ (Curry, 1998) or GIS/2 (Sieber, 2004).

The next section, entitled ‘analytical interventions and innovations’ follows on from the idea of representational flexibility, discussing recent approaches in analysing or experiencing GIS outputs, as well as modifications that allow for richer forms of data to enter a GIS. Knigge and Cope present what for me is the book’s best example of mixed-methods/qualitative GIS in their chapter on grounded visualisation and scale. This is a very effective demonstration of GIS being used as an analytical tool in a way which embraces its quantitative and qualitative strengths. In terms of the back cover content (fig. 1 b) however, the 2 chapters in this section do not really cover a range of methods of analysis, and the chapter from Jin-Kyu Jung is not as strong as other contributions in this book. The final section of the book, ‘conceptual engagements’, features content that is implicitly driving the work of the previous sections. Aitken and Craine present an excellent discussion of representation and non-representation through image and affect which is reminiscent of Mei-Po Kwan’s work (i.e. Kwan, 2007; Kwan, 2002), the most significant figure in critical GIS to be missing from this book.

In summary, Cope and Elwood have been successful in seeding a ‘qualitative GIS’ for future debate. This is not a complete book, but that’s the point and it’s why Eric Sheppard (fig. 1 section a) is spot on when saying ‘Qualititative GIS is coming of age’, suggesting development, or movement towards, rather than attainment of such a status. I hope this will cause GIS researchers to think harder about what they do, and whilst I do not think we’ll find a mass movement to ‘qualititative GIS researchers’, I hope it will result in new techniques emerging in GIS research and a greater consideration of multiple perspectives and representations. Not all the chapters are classic, Nadine Schuurman for instance is almost boring in her discussion of metadata, and many of the chapters are available in some form as journal articles, however this is a great collection, particularly as noted (in fig. 1 c) for ‘upper-level students and researchers’. As GIS becomes increasingly pervasive in the social sciences I think this book will prove an excellent signpost for more qualitatively orientated researchers who wish to integrate mapping and spatial interpretations with their work. I look forward to an expanded and progressive second edition!

References

Curry, M.R., 1998. Digital Places: Living With Geographical Information Technologies, London: Routledge.

Kwan, M., 2002. Feminist Visualization: Re-envisioning GIS as a Method in Feminist Geographic Research. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 92, 645-661.

Kwan, M., 2007. Affecting Geospatial Technologies: Toward a Feminist Politics of Emotion*. The Professional Geographer, 59, 22-34.

Pickles, J., 1995. Ground Truth: The Social Implications of Geographic Information Systems, London: Guilford Press.

Sieber, R., 2004. Rewiring for a GIS/2. Cartographica, 39, 25-39