Advertisement

Status Functions, Collective Intentionality: Matters of Trust for Geospatial Information Sharing

  • Francis Harvey
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4197)

Abstract

A GIS coordinator for a U.S. city complains about data sharing metadata with a single word: “headaches.” He underscores the function of metadata in supporting the process of finding a collective understanding of what the data can be reliably used for. In John Searle’s philosophical work on social reality, this coordinator articulates the struggle to create and maintain the status functions and collective intentionality required for successful data sharing. Each technical solution to data sharing can fail to ensure that the meaning of the shared data is understood. Data sharing must move one rung higher and become information sharing, which requires the collective recognition of status functions and the creation of collective intentionality. Integral to successful information sharing is the creation of an environment of trust that ensures that function recognition occurs. In this paper I examine cases that highlight trust as a measure of status function recognition.

Keywords

Geographic Information System Information Sharing Status Function Social Reality Institutional Trust 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Chrisman, N.R.: Design of geographic information systems based on social and cultural goals. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 53, 1367–1370 (1987)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Giddens, A.: The Consequences of Modernity. The Stanford University Press, Stanford (1990)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Granovetter, M.: Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology 91, 481–510 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harvey, F., Chrisman, N.R.: Boundary objsects and the social construction of GIS technology. Environment and Planning A 30, 1683–1694 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Latour, B.: We Have Never Been Modern. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1993)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Luhmann, N.: Trust and Power. John Wiley and Sons, New York (1979)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Porter, T.M.: Trust in Numbers. The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    SANDAG: Fact Sheet: The forum for regional decision making, SANDAG, San Diego, 2 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Searle, J.: Rationality in Action. MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Searle, J.R.: The Construction of Social Reality. The Free Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tomlinson, R.F.: A Geographic Information System for Regional Planning. In: Stewart, G.A. (ed.) Symposium on Land Evaluation, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, MacMillan of Australia, Melbourne (1968)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tulloch, D.L., Barnes, D., Bartholomew, D., Danielson, D., von Meyer, N.: The Wis-consin Land Information Program: Supporting Community Land Information System Development. Surveying and Land Information Systems 57, 241–248 (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tulloch, D.L., Niemann, B.J.: Evaluating Innovation: The Wisconsin Land Information Program. Geo. Info. Systems 6, 40–44 (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Warren, M.E. (ed.): Democracy and Trust. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francis Harvey
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations