Advertisement

Prospects for VGI Research and the Emerging Fourth Paradigm

  • Sarah ElwoodEmail author
  • Michael F. Goodchild
  • Daniel Sui
Chapter

Abstract

This concluding chapter reflects on some of the core themes that crosscut the contributed chapters, and further outlines some of the stimulating and significant relationships between volunteered geographic information (VGI) and the discipline of geography. We argue that future progress in VGI research depends in large part on building strong linkages with a diversity of geographic scholarship. We situate VGI research in geography’s core concerns with space and place and offer several ways of addressing persistent challenges of quality assurance in VGI. We develop an argument for further research on the heterogeneous social relations through which VGI is produced and their implications for participation, power, and collective or civic action. The final two sections, closely related, position VGI as part of a shift toward hybrid epistemologies and potentially a fourth paradigm of data-intensive inquiry across the sciences.

Keywords

Geographic Information System Civic Engagement Volunteer Geographic Information Geographic Knowledge Geographic World 
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.

References

  1. Bartscherer, T., & Coover, R. (Eds.). (2011). Switching codes: Thinking through digital technology in the humanities and the arts. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  2. Berry, D. M. (Ed.). (2012). Understanding digital humanities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. Bodenhamer, D., Corrigan, J., & Harris, T. (Eds.). (2011). The spatial humanities: GIS and the future of humanities scholarship. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Börner, K. (2011). Plug-and-play macroscopes. Communications of the ACM, 54(3), 60–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Budhathoki, N., Nedovic-Budic, Z., & Bruce, B. (2010). An interdisciplinary frame for understanding volunteered geographic information. Geomatica, 64(1), 11–26.Google Scholar
  6. Burrough, P. A., & Frank, A. U. (Eds.). (1996). Geographic objects with indeterminate boundaries. Bristol: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  7. Cope, M., & Elwood, S. (2009). Qualitative GIS: A mixed methods approach. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Corbett, J. (2011, April 13). The revolution will not be geotagged: Exploring the role of the participatory Geoweb in advocacy and supporting social change. Paper presented at annual meeting of the Association of American Geographers, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  9. Cutter, S., Golledge, R., & Graf, W. (2002). The big questions in geography. The Professional Geographer, 54, 305–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dear, M., Ketchum, J., Luria, S., & Richardson, D. (2011). GeoHumanities: Art, history, and text at the edge of place. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Dunn, C. (2007). Participatory GIS: A people’s GIS? Progress in Human Geography, 31(5), 617–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elwood, S. (2006). Beyond cooptation or resistance: Urban spatial politics, community organizations, and GIS-based spatial narratives. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96(2), 323–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elwood, S. (2009). Mixed methods: Thinking, doing, and asking in multiple ways. In D. DeLyser, M. Crang, L. McDowell, S. Aitken, & S. Herbert (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative geography (pp. 94–113). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. ESRI. (2010). The latest in citizen engagement. ESRI advertising supplement. http://media2.govtech.com/documents/PCIO10_ESRI_V.pdf. Accessed 16 May 2011.
  15. Fielding, N., & Cisneros-Puebla, C. (2009). CAQDAS-GIS convergence: Toward a new integrated mixed method research practice? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(4), 349–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Foresman, T. W. (Ed.). (1998). The history of geographic information systems: Perspectives from the pioneers. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  17. Fuller, D. (2008). Public geographies I – Taking stock. Progress in Human Geography, 32(6), 834–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ghonim, W. (2012). Revolution 2.0: The power of the people is greater than the people in power. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
  19. Goodchild, M. F. (1992). Geographical information science. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 6(1), 31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goodchild, M. (2007). Citizens as sensors: The world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal, 69(4), 211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goodchild, M. (2009). Neogeography and the nature of geographic expertise. Journal of Location Based Services, 3(2), 82–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goodchild, M. F. (2010). Twenty years of progress: GIScience in 2010. Journal of Spatial Information Science, 1(1), 3–20.Google Scholar
  23. Goodchild, M. F., & Gopal, S. (Eds.). (1988). Accuracy of spatial databases. New York: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  24. Goodchild, M. F., & Hill, L. L. (2008). Introduction to digital gazetteer research. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 22(10), 1039–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gould, P. (1981). Letting data speaking for themselves. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 71(2), 166–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gray, J. (2007). eScience – A transformed scientific method. Presentation made to the NRC-CSTB. http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/gray/talks/NRC-CSTB_eScience.ppt. Accessed 19 Dec 2011.
  27. Grira, J., Bedard, Y., & Roche, S. (2010). Spatial data uncertainty in the VGI world: Going from consumer to producer. Geomatica, 64(1), 61–71.Google Scholar
  28. Guptill, S. C., & Morrison, J. L. (Eds.). (1995). Elements of spatial data quality. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  29. Haklay, M. (2010). How good is volunteered geographical information? A comparative study of OpenStreetMap and ordnance survey datasets. Environment and Planning B, 37(4), 682–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Haklay, M., Singleton, A., & Parker, C. (2008). Web mapping 2.0: The neogeography of the GeoWeb. Geography Compass, 2(6), 2011–2039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Halevy, A., Norvig, P., & Pereira, P. (2009). The unreasonable effectiveness of data. IEEE Intelligent Systems, March/April, 8–12.Google Scholar
  32. Hey, T., Tansley, S., & Tolle, K. (Eds.). (2009). The fourth paradigm: Data-intensive scientific discovery. Redmond: Microsoft Research.Google Scholar
  33. Higginbotham, S. (2011). Big data: Science’s microscope of the 21st century. http://www.businessweek.com/technology/big-data-sciences-microscope-of-the-21st-century-11092011.html. Accessed 19 Dec 2011.
  34. Hilbert, D. (1900). Mathematical problems. Göttinger Nachrichten, 253–297 (original work in German; translated into English in 1902).Google Scholar
  35. Jiang, B. (2011). Making GIScience research more open access. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 25(8), 1217–1220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jung, J., & Elwood, S. (2010). Extending the qualitative capabilities of GIS: Computer-aided qualitative GIS. Transactions in GIS, 14(1), 63–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kindon, S., Pain, R., & Kesby, M. (2008). Participatory action research approaches and methods: Connecting people, participation and place. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Knigge, L., & Cope, M. (2009). Grounded visualization and scale: A recursive examination of community spaces. In M. Cope & S. Elwood (Eds.), Qualitative GIS: A mixed methods approach (pp. 95–114). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Kwan, M. (2002). Feminist visualization: Re-envisioning GIS as a method in feminist geography research. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 92(4), 645–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kwan, M., & Knigge, L. (2006). Doing qualitative research with GIS: An oxymoronic endeavor? Environment and Planning A, 38(11), 1999–2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kwan, M., & Schwannen, T. (2009). Critical quantitative geographies. Environment and Planning A, 41(2), 261–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lieverouw, L. (2011). Alternative and activist new media. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  43. Maling, D. H. (1989). Measurements from maps: Principles and methods of cartometry. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  44. Manyika, J., Chui, M., Brown, B., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., Roxburgh, C., & Byers, A. H. (2011). Big data: The next frontier for innovation, competition, and productivity. http://www.mckinsey.com/Insights/MGI/Research/Technology_and_Innovation/Big_data_The_next_frontier_for_innovation. Accessed 19 Dec 2011.
  45. Montello, D. R., Goodchild, M. F., Gottsegen, J., & Fohl, P. (2003). Where’s downtown? Behavioral methods for determining referents of vague spatial queries. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 3(2–3), 185–204.Google Scholar
  46. Nielsen, M. (2012). Reinventing discovery: The new era of networked Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Poore, B. (2011, April 13). VGI/PGI: Virtual community or bowling alone? Paper presented at annual meeting of the Association of American Geographers, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  48. Raymond, E. S. (1999). The cathedral and the bazaar. Sebastopol: O’Reilly.Google Scholar
  49. Rose, G. (2000). Hybridity. In R. J. Johnston, D. Gregory, G. Pratt, & M. Watts (Eds.), The dictionary of human geography (pp. 364–365). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  50. Sheppard, E. (2001). Quantitative geography: Representations, practices, and possibilities. Environment and Planning D: Society & Space, 19(5), 535–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shirky, C. (2010). Cognitive surplus: How technology makes consumers into collaborators. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  52. Sieber, R. (2000). GIS implementation in the grassroots. URISA Journal, 12(1), 15–51.Google Scholar
  53. Sieber, R. (2006). Public participation geographic information systems: A literature review and framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96(3), 491–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sieber, R. (2011, April 13). Volunteered geographic information: Motivation or empowerment? Paper presented at annual meeting of the Association of American Geographers, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  55. Sui, D., & DeLyser, D. (2012). Crossing the qualitative-quantitative chasm I: Hybrid geographies, the spatial turn, and volunteered geographic information (VGI). Progress in Human Geography, 36(1), 111–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. The U.S. National Science Foundation. (2011). Rebuilding the mosaic: Fostering research in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences at the National Science Foundation in the next decade. www.nsf.gov/pubs/2011/nsf11086/nsf11086.pdf. Accessed 19 Dec 2011.
  57. Tobler, W. R. (1970). A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Economic Geography, 46(2), 234–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tuan, Y.-F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  59. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  60. Ward, K. (2007). Geography and public policy: Activist, participatory and policy geographies. Progress in Human Geography, 31(5), 695–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Warf, B., & Arias, S. (Eds.). (2009). The spatial turn: Interdisciplinary perspectives. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  62. Weinberger, D. (2012). Too big to know: Rethinking knowledge now that the facts aren’t the facts, experts are everywhere, and the smartest person in the room is the room. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  63. Wigner, E. P. (1960). The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 13, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wilson, M. (2011). ‘Training the eye’: Formation of the geocoding subject. Social & Cultural Geography, 12(4), 357–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wright, D. J., & Wang, S. (2011). The emergence of spatial cyber infrastructure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(14), 5488–5491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah Elwood
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael F. Goodchild
    • 2
  • Daniel Sui
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Department of GeographyUniversity of California at Santa BarbaraSanta BarbaraUSA
  3. 3.Department of GeographyThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations