Advertisement

GeoJournal

, Volume 82, Issue 1, pp 171–183 | Cite as

Maps as geomedial action spaces: considering the shift from logocentric to egocentric engagements

  • Pablo Abend
  • Francis Harvey
Article

Abstract

This paper considers some significant questions in geography and cognate fields about the roles of maps in the information age. Most maps are now digital products, offering immersive environments for user involvement. The increasingly networked digital distribution of geographic information in consumer-orientated cartographic representations leads to substantial changes how people individually and collaboratively experience and produce space and place. This article focuses on the ongoing metamorphosis arising through geobrowsing, the media-based flexible production of geographic knowledge through interactive maps. Drawing on work in media studies influenced by the so-called spatial turn—the rediscovering of geography-related questions in the social sciences and humanities, after modernism’s claimed prioritization of time and history (Soja in Postmodern Geographies. The reassertion of space in critical social theory, London, 1989; Jameson in Postmodernism, or, the cultural logic of late capitalism, Duke University Press, Durham, 1991)—this paper develops a theoretical framework built on the dynamic networked geomedial action spaces concept to understand the changing roles of information age maps as imagined materialist spaces for the experience and production of space—ultimately a medial turn. Following this concept, maps change from offering static and non-interactive frames of geographic reference for the production of space and place and as geomedia support a veritable infinity of interactive and map-based activities. Geobrowsing facilitates some new modes of geographic interactions that move from logocentric engagements with static maps to egocentric dynamic interactions with code-based elements of geomedial action spaces. Google Earth and similar geomedia facilitate maps that become intrinsic to a growing number of social action spaces and alter the experience and production of space and place.

Keywords

Online maps Neogeography Media studies User interaction Geobrowsing Geomedia Spatial turn 

Notes

Compliance with ethics requirements

Conflict of interest

Dr. Pablo Abend declares that he has no conflict of interest. Prof. Dr. Francis Harvey declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008 (5).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

References

  1. Aarseth, E. (1997). Cybertext: Perspectives on ergodic literature. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Abend, P. (2013). Geobrowsing: Google Earth und Co.Nutzungspraktiken einer digitalen Erde. Transcript, Bielefeld.Google Scholar
  3. Abend, P., Thielmann, T., Ewerth, R., Seiler, D., Mühling, M., Döring, J., et al. (2012). Geobrowsing behavior in Google Earth. In T. Jekel, A. Car, J. Strobl, & G. Griesebner (Eds.), GI_Forum 2012: Geovisualization, society and learning (pp. 2–13). Berlin: Wichmann.Google Scholar
  4. Aitken, S. C., & Crane, J. (2009). Affektive Geovisualisierung. In J. Döring & T. Thielmann (Eds.), Mediengeographie (pp. 481–488). Bielefeld: Transcript.Google Scholar
  5. Akrich, M. (1992). The description of technical objects. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society. Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 205–224). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Azocar Fernandez, P. I., & Buchroithner, M. F. (2014). Paradigms in cartography. A epistemological review of the 20th and 21st centuries. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Banks, J. (2013). Co-creating videogames. London, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Begall, S., Červený, J., Neef, J., Vojtčch, O., & Burda, H. (2008). Magnetic alignment in grazing and resting cattle and deer. PNAS, 105(36), 13451–13455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Benjamin, W. (1969). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. In H. Arendt (Ed.), Illuminations (pp. 217–251). New York, NY: Schocken Books.Google Scholar
  10. Bolter, J. D., & Grusin, R. (2000). Remediation. Understanding new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, E., & Cairns, P. (2004). A grounded investigation of immersion in games. In CHI 2004 (pp. 1297–1300).Google Scholar
  12. Burda, H., Begall, S., Červený, J., Neef, J., & Nemec, P. (2009). Extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields disrupt magnetic alignment of ruminants. PNAS, 106(14), 5708–5713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Calleja, G. (2011). In-game. from immersion to incorporation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Caquard, S. (2011). Cartography I: Mapping narrative cartography. Progress in Human Geography, 37(1), 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Caquard, S. (2014). Cartography II: Collective cartographies in the social media era. Progress in Human Geography, 38(1), 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cartwright, W. E. (2010a). Exploring space: Lessons from applying interactive integrated media for visualising geography. The Globe, 64(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  17. Cartwright, W. E. (2010b). Addressing the value of art in cartographic communication. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 65(3), 294–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cartwright, W. E., & Hunter, G. J. (2001). Towards a methodology for the evaluation of multimedia geographical information products. GeoInformatica, 5(3), 291–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dodge, M., Perkins, C., & Kitchin, R. (2009). Mapping modes, methods and moments: a manifesto for map studies. In M. Dodge, R. Kitchin, & C. Perkins (Eds.), Rethinking maps (pp. 220–243). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Döring, J., & Thielmann, T. (2008). Spatial turn. Das Raumparadigma in den Kultur- und Sozialwissenschaften. Bielefeld: Transcript.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Döring, J., & Thielmann, T. (2009). Mediengeographie. Theorie–Analyse–Diskussion. Bielefeld: Transcript.Google Scholar
  22. Farman, J. (2011). Mobile interface theory. Routledge, NY: Embodied space and locative media.Google Scholar
  23. Felgenhauer, T., & Quade, D. (2012). Society and geomedia. Some reflections from a social theory perspective. In T. Jekel, A. Car, J. Strobl, & G. Griesebner (Eds.), GI_Forum 2012: Geovisualization, society and learning (pp. 74–82). Berlin: Wichmann.Google Scholar
  24. Gartner, G. (2009). Web mapping 2.0. In M. Dodge, R. Kitchin, & Ch. R. Perkins (Eds.), Rethinking maps (pp. 68–82). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Gibson, J. J. (1950). The perception of the visual world. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  26. Goodchild, M. F. (2007). Citizens as sensors. The world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal, 69(4), 211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goodchild, M. F. (2008). What does Google Earth mean for the social sciences? In M. Dodge, M. McDerby, & M. Turner (Eds.), Geographic visualization: Concepts, tools and applications (pp. 11–23). Chichester/Hoboken: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harley, J. B. (1988). Silences and secrecy: The Hidden Agenda of cartography in early modern Europe. Imago Mundi, 40(1), 55–76.Google Scholar
  29. Harley, J. B. (1989). Deconstructing the map. Cartographica, 26(2), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harvey F, 2012 Are there fundamental principles in Geographic Information Science? USA: Tobler Lecture Event 2012 of the Association of American Geographers Geographic Information Systems and Science Specialty Group, CreateSpace, Independent Publishing Platform.Google Scholar
  31. Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism, or, the cultural logic of late capitalism. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture. Where old and new media collide. New York, NY: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Kehlmann, D. (2005). Fingerreisen. Du–Zeitschrift für Kultur, 11(12), 20–21.Google Scholar
  34. Kingsbury, P., & Jones, J. P., III (2009). Walter Benjamin’s Dionysian adventures on Google Earth. Geoforum, 40(4), 502–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Klatzky, R. L. (1998). Allocentric and egocentric spatial representations: Definitions, distinctions, and interconnections. In C. Freksa, C. Habel, & K. F. Wender (Eds.), An interdisciplinary approach to representing and processing spatial knowledge (pp. 1–17). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope. Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 3(2). doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x.
  39. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford, CA: Standford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Manovich, L. (2001). The language of new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Manovich, L. (2013). Software takes command. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  42. Massey, D. (2005). For space. London; Thousand Oaks; New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. McHaffie, P. (1995). Manufacturing metaphors: Public cartography, the Market, and Democracy. In J. Pickles (Ed.), Ground truth. The social implications of geographic information systems (pp. 113–129). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  44. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media. The extension of man. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  45. Montello, D. R. (2002). Cognitive map-design research in the twentieth century, theoretical and empirical approaches. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 29(3), 283–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Morrison, J. L. (1997). Topographic mapping for the twenty first century. In D. Rhind (Ed.), Framework for the world (pp. 14–27). Cambridge, MA: Wiley.Google Scholar
  47. November, V., Camacho-Hübner, E., & Latour, B. (2010). Entering a risky territory: Space in the age of digital navigation. Environment and Planning D, 28(4), 581–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. O’Reilly, T. (2005). What Is Web 2.0. 30 September, http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html.
  49. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble. What the Internet is hiding from you. New York, NY: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  50. Perkins, C. (2006). Cultures of everyday map collecting. Sheetlines, 76, 29–32.Google Scholar
  51. Perkins, C. (2008). Cultures of map use. The Cartographic Journal, 45(2), 150–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Peuquet, D., & Kraak, M.-J. (2002). Geobrowsing: Creative thinking and knowledge discovery using geographic visualization. Information Visualization, 1(1), 80–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pickles, J. (Ed.). (1995). Ground truth: The social implications of geographical information systems. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  54. Pickles, J. (2004). A history of spaces: Cartographic reason, mapping and the geo-coded world. London: Routledge Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  55. Polanyi, M., & Prosch, H. (1975). Meaning. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  56. Rammert, W. (1993). Technik aus soziologischer Perspektive Bd.1 Forschungsstand, Theorieansätze, Fallbeispiele (VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Opladen).Google Scholar
  57. Rammert, W., Böhm, W., & Olscha, C. (1991). Vom Umgang mit Computern im Alltag. Fallstudien zur Kultivierung einer neuen Technik (VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Opladen).Google Scholar
  58. Scharl, A., & Tochtermann, K. (2007). The geospatial web. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Slater, M., & Wilbur, S. (1997). A framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE): Speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence, 6(6), 603–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Soja, E. W. (1989). Postmodern geographies. The reassertion of space in critical social theory (London/New York).Google Scholar
  61. Soja, E. W. (1996). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other real-and-imagined places. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  62. Suchman, L. A. (1999). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human–machine communication. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Sutton, J. (2008). Material agency, skills, and history: distributed cognition and the archaeology of memory. In L. Malafouris & C. Knappett (Eds.), Material agency: Towards a non-anthropocentric approach (pp. 37–55). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thielmann, T. (2010). Locative media and mediated localities. Aether: The Journal of Media Geography, 5, 1–17.Google Scholar
  65. Thielmann, T., Van der Velden, L., Fischer, F., & Vogler, R. (2012). Dwelling in the web: Towards a Googlization of space. HIIG discussion paper no. 3, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2151949.
  66. Thrift, N. (2008). Non-representational theory. Space, politics, affect. London, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  67. Treisman, A., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12(1), 97–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Turnbull, D. (2007). Maps narratives and trails: Performativity, hodology and distributed knowledges in complex adaptive systems—an approach to emergent mapping. Geographical Research, 45(2), 140–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Turner, A. J. (2006a). Introduction to neogeography. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Short cuts.Google Scholar
  70. Turner, P. (2006b). Affordance as context. Interacting with Computers, 17(6), 787–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vandenberg, S. G., & Kuse, A. R. (1978). Mental rotations, a group test of three-dimensional spatial visualization, perceptual and motor skills. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47(2), 599–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Verhoeff, N. (2012). Mobile screens. The visual regime of navigation. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Warf, B., & Arias, S. (2009). The spatial turn. Interdisciplinary perspectives. London, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  74. Wilken, R., & Goggin, G. (2012). Mobile technology and place. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  75. Winter, G., Schröter, J., & Barck, J. (2009). Das Raumbild. Eine Einleitung. In G. Winter, J. Schröter, & J. Barck (Eds.), Das Raumbild (pp. 7–18). Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
  76. Wirth, W., & Hofer, M. (2008). Präsenzerleben, Eine medienpsychologische Modellierung. Montage/av, 17(2), 159–175.Google Scholar
  77. Wood, D., & Fels, J. (1992). The power of maps. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  78. Zook, M., & Graham, M. (2007). The creative reconstruction of the internet: Google and the privatization of cyberspace and DigiPlace. Geoforum, 38(6), 1322–1343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Media Culture und TheatreUniversity of CologneCologneGermany
  2. 2.Leibniz-Institute for Regional Geography and University of LeipzigLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations