widely read and criticized by practitioners of
GIS, many of whom retain the tool metaphor as
their modus operandi (Wright et al., 1997).
While a number of individuals have divined
these struggles to be a revival of qualitative/
quantitative quarrels, recent work that has
synthesized and pointed to substantial common
ground indicates the coming together of these
disparate approaches (Schuurman, 2000).
Nicholas Chrisman’s work is instructive in
this regard. He explores the linkages between
institutions, society, and technological practices.
For example, Chrisman (1991) points out that
GIS data models are based on a system of axioms
that limits them to the data for which they were
developed and ignores the complexity of human
geographic experience. Chrisman’s work is
notable among GIS practititioners because it
indicates a rare interest in the social and cultural
settings where GIS is developed. His analysis,
although often structuralist in orientation, is
nevertheless instructive in understanding the
forces shaping GIS (Chrisman, 1987).
GIS represents a shift in various dimensions.
Whereas previously, cartographers readily
understood themselves as specialists in the carto-
graphic representation of geographic knowledge,
this activity has become so decentralized and
widespread that geographers now see themselves
as embedded in a large-scale re-engineering of
cartographic products and information. While
these activities are undoubtedly important, a
focus on data and cartographic products impairs
our ability to discern an even larger shift to alter-
native forms of representations, some of which
have been brought about by artists and profes-
sionals to enhance the communicative capabili-
ties of these technologies. Appropriating GIS
and other spatial technologies for cultural dis-
courses involves a direct engagement with the
politics of representation. Clearly, geographic
technology is tied up in our geographic imagina-
tions (Gregory, 1994). Today, the cinematic
landscape of cyberspace, which none of us
empirically ‘experiences’, is as tied up in our
concepts of geography as a weekly walk in the
park. To enable alternative geographic informa-
tion technologies we need to develop local tech-
nologies for local needs. This is more than just
being involved in design; it implies participation,
an engagement that involves ‘simultaneously
understanding and activating spatialities’
(Cosgrove and Martins, 2000: 97). This is a
politics that displaces hegemonic perspectives so
as to facilitate pluralistic sets of meanings and
communication – the creation of multiple
ontologies (see Howitt and Suchet, Chapter 31 in
this section).For example, Cosgrove and Martins’ (2000)
performative mappings open ways for artistic
engagement by using geographic technologies
for the discursive production of culture. The map
‘becomes a discursive expression of an active
and participatory geographical place-making’
(2000: 107). While they discuss this technique as
a form of artistic expression, there is certainly
great political and practical potential in using the
discursive character of imagining and drawing a
map. Registered, or transformed to a coordinate
grid, these maps could easily be combined with
other mappings and official maps as part of a
communicative discourse.
A similar but more visual approach was devel-
oped by an international team studying the per-
ceptions of housing projects in Holland (Gaver
et al., 1999). Cultural probes are media given to
residents of the project to document their experi-
ences of the project. For instance, a postcard was
given out at a large meeting inviting residents to
indicate on a map the areas they felt threatened
by, areas with too much traffic, etc. These images
were used to start discussion in meetings, and the
team recorded varying perspectives. This use of
GIS is evidenced in earlier work on feathered
layers, an idea presented in India during the
1950s (Khan, 1954). Sliced maps, as Khan also
called them, were transparent overlays bound to
a base map on each edge of the map. The four
transparent sheets could be folded down
individually or together to examine relationships
between different themes visually. India continues
to be the focus of participatory work (Hoeschele,
2000).
Public participation in GIS has become a
vibrant area of research in its own right. A large
body of work has been published in this area on
topics ranging from citizen participation in North
American inner cities to aiding non-profit con-
servation group activities (McMaster et al.,
1997; Mugerauer, 2000; Schiffer, 1998;
Sheppard, 1995; Sieber, 2000). While much of
this work has focused on bettering existing insti-
tutional planning activities, there is a growing
interest in grassroots activities (Craig et al.,
2002; Harris and Weiner, 1998). The world wide
web has also stimulated work by a number of
researchers working to redress the lack of web-
supported public participation GIS and the con-
straints posed by existing power structures and
planning practices (Carver, 2001). This work all
shares a motivation to improve the inclusivity of
planning practices through communication.
Robert Mugerauer (2000) directly engages
these issues, but with a focus on more funda-
mental questions about the role of geographic
information technology. He points to the currentKNOWLEDGE AND GEOGRAPHY’S TECHNOLOGY 5393029-ch29qxd.qxd 03-10-02 11:08 AM Page 539