We should definitely get together one of these days... Lots of agreement. I think it's important to have these discussions on the open list though, because I think it's too easy for a computer-based discussion to remain too technology-centric. And it's fantastic that geographers are finding jobs in the private sector and even better that they are getting exposed to more challenging ideas in school before they get there. It's really what the University is all about.
These discussions are how we keep the two tied together. -Eric P.S. I've been telling my academic mentors for years that many of these "really hard" research problems, like automated feature extraction from remotely sensed data, will end up being solved over a weekend by some over-caffeinated teenager. Google "solved" similar problems in Google Earth by taking a commonly known concept in cartography (globes are better than maps at representing the world) and throwing just the right amount of technology at it to create a platform that furthers their goals (world domination?!?). But Google Earth even caught ESRI off guard. On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 5:08 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Eric, > > Sounds like we are much of the same mind. The role you outline for post > modern thought is spot on. Where I've disagreed in the past is that > positivism has been exhausted. I think it is a bit of a cop out - like > saying Einstein sorted out that E=MC squared thing so physics is done. I > believe there is loads more that can be done on the computational and > mathematical side of Geography. I loved the 60's and 70's guys like > Haggert, Chorley, Berry etc, but science has continued to advance and > geogrpahy has less so. > > There are bastions of quantitative innovation out there like UCL's CASA and > we have them to partially thank for the Paul Torrens, Steve Coasts, and Tom > Cardens of the world. The work being done to apply physics and statistical > mechanics to Geography is very cool and innovative stuff. There are even > physicists like Mark Newman, Alberto Barabasi, and Reka Albert looking a > spatial dimensions (even cartograms) in condensed matters research. > > This is the kind of research that is going to lead to innovation in the > GeoWeb. I see the applicability every day working on projects here, yet it > gets scarce attention within the discipline. The geographers that do this > type of research are largely leaving the discipline and heading to the > private sector or other departments. I hope it will change but doubtful. > > best, > sean > > p.s. if this is terribly droll and too off topic for folks happy to take it > off line > > FortiusOne Inc, > 2200 Wilson Blvd. suite 307 > Arlington, VA 22201 > cell - 202-321-3914 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Wolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2008 6:41:59 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > Subject: Re: [Geowanking] Critical Theory > > Sean, > > I can't agree with you more. Even though my PhD dissertation research > focuses exclusively on aspects of managing geographic information in ways > that haven't really had direct application prior to the advent of virtual > globes, my advisor looks down on WorldWind and Google Earth. She's also > completely clueless about the state of the art in terms of web-enabled GIS. > > I think the real problem is that Geography is traditionally an Arts & > Sciences discipline that's a little more closely situated to Sociology than > Geology in Academia. Geography, as a discipline is not accepting of the > fast > pace of change of modern technology. For instance, my department still > expects a dissertation that is essentially a 300+ page book. Most other > sciences accept a dissertation that's a compilation of three peer-reviewed > journal articles. And in GIScience, I find most of my research readings > come > not from journals but from conference papers. > > But don't entirely discount the academic geographers. While it seems that > they all run from math and positivism, it's because they went through > what's > known as "The Quantitative Revolution" in the 60s and 70s and exhausted > much > of what can be shown through mathematical and statistical models. Look at > the origins of things like multidimensional statistical analyses and > spatial > autocorrelation and you'll see some old Geographers and Sociologists > staring > back at you. The answer that some might give you about solving problems > with > Google Earth is: Been there, done that, got the tenure. Now we're working > on > something a little more challenging. > > In many ways, the prevelence of post modernism in mainstream geography is > both a reaction to the exhaustion of logical positivism as a mode of > inquiriy and an outgrowth of deconstruction of the role geography has > played > in the history of mankind (it's not very pretty, so I'm not going to go > into > details). So now, while the logical positivists in geography are dealing > with problems like modeling the melting ice sheet in Greenland, the post > modernists are dealing with problems of displaced people due to sea level > rise. The role that the positivists are playing can be easily picked up by > other disciplines but the problems that the post modernists are approaching > are uniquely geographical in nature. > > -Eric > > On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 4:10 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Apologies for driving the thread off course but happy to add to the new > > thread. The comment on critical theory replacing "good solid empirical > > research" was a bit of flame bait. It is a contraction in terms - you > can't > > really replace one with the other, critical and/or post modern theory is > by > > definition not empirical and vice versa (poking myself in the eye ;-). > > > > That aside, my lament is not that critical theory has no place or is not > > important, but that as a discipline (Geography) we have swung too far in > the > > critical theory direction. At the NYC AAG 2001 the editor of the NY > Times > > gave a great keynote where he basically admonished the discipline for not > > being relevant to society. The vast majority of the popular books > > associated with geography are not written by geographers - Guns, Germs > and > > Steel by Jared Diamond (he took a Geography post at UCLA after writing > the > > book but it was not his background) The New Economic Geography by Paul > > Krugman (an economist). He had a long list in the presentation, but his > > point was stop focusing so much on critical theory and start thinking > about > > how you can be relevant to society. > > > > Now we see the same thing happening with the GeoWeb. Huge amounts of > > innovation that is massively popular with the public, and very few > > geographers involved. Instead the major contributions are post modern > > critiques of the innovation. It is especially disappointing because the > > collaborative and open nature of the GeoWeb has the potential to diminish > so > > many of the problems critical theory points out in Geography. Yet > instead > > of looking at the potential to solve problems we produce lyrical quips > like, > > "Google Earth is routinely understood as a virtual globe composed of > > surveyed panoramas, sober rationalization, dystopic control, and > transparent > > order rather than an uncertain orb spangled with vertiginous paranoia, > > frenzied navigation, jubilatory dissolution, and intoxicating giddiness." > > > > This may be true vis a vi Google Earth, but why do we focus almost > > exclusively on such angles instead of how we can educate a new mass of > users > > on what good geography is? > > > > best, > > sean > > > > FortiusOne Inc, > > 2200 Wilson Blvd. suite 307 > > Arlington, VA 22201 > > cell - 202-321-3914 > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Eric Wolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2008 4:03:13 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > > Subject: [Geowanking] Critical Theory > > > > > Too often post modern theory replaces good solid empirical research. > > > > Part of what defines Geography (or paleo-Geography in this forum) as a > > discipline has been it's ability to merge the human with the empirical. > > > > Issues of data ownership have been a front-line research area for GIS. It > > used to be focused on parcel data sets. The basic argument was: if public > > funds are used to pay for the data collection, it should be free for > public > > use. Later it morphed into cost sharing programs used by local > governments > > to fund aerial photography runs. The civic government wasn't able to > afford > > the fly-over. By sharing costs with other interested parties, they were > > able > > to acquire better data. Who, then, owns the data? Since it was partly > > funded > > by the public, shouldn't everyone get it? Then what value was there for > the > > interested parties to invest funds? > > > > But geographic information has a component that goes way beyond who owns > > what. It's much more fundamental and deals with the ontological nature of > > geographic information. Putting someting "on the map" establishes it's > > existence in significant ways. When you start messing with ontology, you > > better be open to critical (post modern) analysis. > > > > For instance, I work for the USGS. We are doing everything we can to > expose > > more geospatial information for public use via open standards. However, > the > > USGS holds some data that it won't expose. There are significant > > environmental concerns for exposing some data. There are significant > > security concerns for other data. > > > > And there are cultural concerns for not exposing other data. But how do > we > > define these cultural concerns? > > > > It used to be well established based on "solid empirical research" that > > Native Americans deserved little rights to lands they inhabited for > > generations. The Enlightenment led to genocide of indigenous cultures. > Now > > we understand that there are reasons beyond the empirical research to > > protect geographic information relating to these cultures that were once > > considered unimportant. > > > > Example: if you put an previously unmapped location containing > significant > > Native American cultural artifacts on a publicly available map, these > > artifacts will likely be stolen or vandalized. The act of putting > something > > on the map has significant social implications. If you value the rights > of > > Native Americans to retain what little is left of their culture, you will > > leave these things off your map. > > > > -Eric Wolf > > Geographer, USGS Center of Excellence in GIScience > > > > -- > > -=--=---=----=----=---=--=-=--=---=----=---=--=-=- > > Eric B. Wolf 720-209-6818 > > PhD Student CU-Boulder - Geography > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Geowanking mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking > > _______________________________________________ > > Geowanking mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking > > > > > > -- > -=--=---=----=----=---=--=-=--=---=----=---=--=-=- > Eric B. Wolf 720-209-6818 > PhD Student CU-Boulder - Geography > > _______________________________________________ > Geowanking mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking > _______________________________________________ > Geowanking mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking > -- -=--=---=----=----=---=--=-=--=---=----=---=--=-=- Eric B. Wolf 720-209-6818 PhD Student CU-Boulder - Geography
_______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
