Reading this discussion, it made me think of the Chris Anderson's "Pro-am collaborations" that he talks about in his book The Long Tail (traditional examples are journalists/bloggers astronomers/star chasers). What ever the names (though I'll acknowledge the importance of names inside and outside academic circles), the professional- amateur relationship is reshaping many fields and domains. It may not be a revolution or even perceived as significant by experts, still the influence of the masses is changing the world's perception (rightly or wrongly) of our fields may it be GIScience, geography or cartography (or a blurry mix of the three). This is, in my view, sufficient to stop an ponder at what it means to be a GIScientist/ geographer/cartographer today (in the public and private arena). As I see it, one of the most interesting question around this issue is:
"how do we welcome amateurs to our fields so that their contribution is worthwhile, they recognize their limits in some areas and the field of GIScience/geography/cartography benefit from the changing context" or generically speaking "how do we, as pro, establish a significant partnership with amateurs (and proamateurs) or at least how do we collectively build a solid base for this relationship to grow". Interesting topic no doubt! Cheers, Daniel Chamberland-Tremblay Ph.D. Candidate Computer Science Contract Professor Department of Information Systems and Quantitative Methods Business Faculty, Université de Sherbrooke, Canada ---------------------------------------- DOMUS Laboratory of Université de Sherbrooke Home automation and mobile computing http://domus.usherbrooke.ca Tel: +1 (819) 821-8000 ext. 63825 Fax: +1 (819) 821-8200 GeoBusiness Group of Université de Sherbrooke http://geobusiness.usherbrooke.ca Tel: +1 (819) 821-8000 ext. 61316 Fax: +1 (819) 821-7934 ---------------------------------------- LinkedIn profile http://www.linkedin.com/in/danielctremblay On 08-Nov-23, at 10:51 , Anthony Robinson wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:geowanking- > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R E Sieber > > > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 8:54 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: [Geowanking] Idea for a Neogeographers meet > Paleogeographers > > > panel at Where 2.0 > > > > > > Also, you'll notice that the above abstract is a bit hard on the > > > paleos and gracious to the neos. What I'd need is some wording > that's > > > gracious to the paleos. Can you think of good things to say about > > > traditional cartographer and GIScience? (Obviously I can, but I'm > > > curious as to others' impressions.) > > > > I'm not sure why anyone would think that calling academic GIScience > folks "paleogeographers" would foster meaningful discussion in the > way that you describe. That term seems condescending to me - I > guess I am a paleogeographer because I work at a university and I > am a researcher in GIScience - this despite the fact that we build > open source software (since 10 years ago, and in recent years our > software leads are GeoTools folks), much of linked to computational > methods for data mining and cluster detection. So the proprietary, > non-computational, and closed characterizations do not apply. And > our center is far from the only place where this kind of work is > taking place in academia. > > > > What does GIScience and Cartography Research have to offer? > Research advances in GIScience and Cartography provide the basis > for all kinds of things that people are mashing up today. Mapping > and spatial analysis methods didn't simply appear out of thin air > to become mashable through an API. > > > > I think the "paleo" perspective on what GIScience research is all > about has little evidence to support it. Maybe those assumptions > apply instead to GIScience as it is *practiced* in much of the > professional world. > > > > So clearly I have some strong opinions about this. :) I guess I > just wonder if your stated goals are at all possible if you're > going to devote attention to defining camps and weighting them down > with sweeping generalizations. That's going to alienate good ideas > and attract people who just want to gripe. > > > > I think this session would benefit from simply comparing different > types of goals associated with GIScience research vs. those who are > associated more closely with neogeography. It would be interesting > to identify places where the more science-oriented goals of > GIScience research might mesh well with faster-moving neogeography > goals and vice versa. One thing that is almost certainly in common > is that both communities need to find people to fund this stuff in > one way or another. So are there good examples of projects that mix > university research with neogeography partners? If not, what are > the barriers to that happening and how could we change them? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > -Anthony > > > > > > Anthony Robinson, PhD > > Research Associate > > John A. Dutton e-Education Institute / GeoVISTA Center > > Department of Geography > > The Pennsylvania State University > > http://www.personal.psu.edu/acr181/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Geowanking mailing list > [email protected] > http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
