What Can GIS Do?
Keywords:GIS, geographical imagination systems, community geographies, speculative computing, algorithmic governance
This special issue is organized around the deceptively simple question: "what should the doing of critical GIS look like?" Instead of declaring what path critical GIS should take, I instead argue that we do not know what GIS can do. Attending every effort to chart a course for critical GIS, I suggest that we hold a place for doubt and unknowing, acknowledging that the potentials and possibilities of GIS do not preexist practice, but rather, critical GIS emerges in the doing and practice of GIS. Following this argument, I make three main claims in the article. First, I argue that understanding the possibilities for GIS requires being attentive to how particular instantiations of GIS connect with social and material relations. Second, I argue that the doing of critical GIS might use these existing limitations as a starting point for the remaking of GIS. Third, I argue that the doing of critical GIS has an important role to play in understanding how GIS is used within infrastructures of governance. I conclude by suggesting that the doing of critical GIS takes meaningful form through experimentation, openness to the encounter, and linking with existing situated practices and theories.
Amoore, Louise. 2018. “Cloud Geographies: Computing, Data, Sovereignty.” Progress in Human Geography 42 (1): 4–24. doi:10.1177/0309132516662147.
———. 2019. “Doubt and the Algorithm: On the Partial Accounts of Machine Learning.” Theory, Culture & Society 36 (6): 147–69. doi:10.1177/0263276419851846.
Bergmann, Luke, and Nick Lally. 2021. “For geographical imagination systems.” Annals of the American Association of Geographers 111 (1): 26–35. doi:10.1080/24694452.2020.1750941.
Brown, Michael, and Larry Knopp. 2008. “Queering the Map: The Productive Tensions of Colliding Epistemologies.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 98 (1): 40–58. doi:10.1080/00045600701734042.
Drucker, Johanna. 2009. SpecLab: Digital Aesthetics and Projects in Speculative Computing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Elwood, Sarah. 2006. “Negotiating Knowledge Production: The Everyday Inclusions, Exclusions, and Contradictions of Participatory GIS Research.” The Professional Geographer 58 (2): 197–208.
Elwood, Sarah, and Rina Ghose. 2001. “PPGIS in Community Development Planning: Framing the Organizational Context.” Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization 38 (3-4): 19–33. doi:10.3138/R411-50G8-1777-2120.
Gahegan, Mark. 2018. “Our GIS Is Too Small: Our GIS Is Too Small.” The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe Canadien 62 (1): 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12434.
Gieseking, Jen Jack. 2018. “Operating Anew: Queering GIS with Good Enough Software: Operating Anew.” The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe Canadien 62 (1): 55–66. doi:10.1111/cag.12397.
Guariglia, Matthew. 2020. “Technology Can’t Predict Crime, It Can Only Weaponize Proximity to Policing.” Electronic Frontier Foundation. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/09/technology-cant-predict-crime-it-can-only-weaponize-proximity-policing.
Holmes, Brian. 2009. Escape the Overcode: Activist Art in the Control Society. Eindhoven: Van Abbemuseum.
Jefferson, Brian Jordan. 2017a. “Predictable Policing: Predictive Crime Mapping and Geographies of Policing and Race.” Annals of the American Association of Geographers, May, 1–16. doi:10.1080/24694452.2017.1293500.
———. 2017b. “Digitize and Punish: Computerized Crime Mapping and Racialized Carceral Power in Chicago.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 35 (5): 775–96. doi:10.1177/0263775817697703.
Kitchin, Rob, Justin Gleeson, and Martin Dodge. 2013. “Unfolding Mapping Practices: A New Epistemology for Cartography.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 38 (3): 480–96. doi:10.1111/j.1475-5661.2012.00540.x.
Lally, Nick, and Luke Bergmann. 2021. “enfolding: An Experimental geographical imagination system (gis).” Edited by Paul Kingsbury and Anna J. Secor. A Place More Void. University of Nebraska Press.
Lum, Kristian, and William Isaac. 2016. “To Predict and Serve?” Significance 13 (5): 14–19. doi:10.1111/j.1740-9713.2016.00960.x.
McKittrick, Katherine. 2011. “On Plantations, Prisons, and a Black Sense of Place.” Social & Cultural Geography 12 (8): 947–63. doi:10.1080/14649365.2011.624280.
McPherson, Tara. 2018. Feminist in a Software Lab: Difference + Design. MetaLABprojects. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: Harvard University Press.
Norheim, Robert A. 2001. “How Institutional Cultures Affect Results: Comparing Two Old-Growth Forest Mapping Projects.” Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization 38 (3-4): 35–52. doi:10.3138/4618-2K34-3752-4616.
Poore, Barbara S. 2003. “The Open Black Box: The Role of the End-User in GIS Integration.” The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien 47 (1): 62–74. doi:10.1111/1541-0064.02e13.
Robinson, Jonnell A., Daniel Block, and Amanda Rees. 2017. “Community Geography: Addressing Barriers in Public Participation GIS.” The Cartographic Journal 54 (1): 5–13. doi:10.1080/00087041.2016.1244322.
Rundstrom, Robert A. 1995. “GIS, Indigenous Peoples, and Epistemological Diversity.” Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 22 (1): 45–57. doi:10.1559/152304095782540564.
Schuurman, Nadine. 2000. “Trouble in the Heartland: GIS and Its Critics in the 1990s.” Progress in Human Geography 24 (4): 569–90. doi:10.1191/030913200100189111.
Secor, Anna, and Jess Linz. 2017. “Becoming Minor.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 35 (4): 568–73. doi:10.1177/0263775817710075.
Sieber, Renee. 2004. “Rewiring for a GIS/2.” Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization 39 (1): 25–39. doi:10.3138/T6U8-171M-452W-516R.
Suchman, Lucy, Jeanette Blomberg, Julian E. Orr, and Randall Trigg. 1999. “Reconstructing Technologies as Social Practice.” American Behavioral Scientist 43 (3): 392–408. doi:10.1177/00027649921955335.
Warren, Gwendolyn. 1971. “About the Work in Detroit.” Field Notes No.3: The Geography of the Children of Detroit. Detroit.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2022 Nick Lally
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors agree to publish their articles in ACME under the Creative Commons "Attribution/Non-Commercial/No Derivative Works" Canada licence. To read and review the agreement, click here. In line with fair attribution and proper permissions, note any copyrights of materials cited in your paper. Do not use materials that are not fair use without express written consent.