GIS eased into geography without much discord until the 1990s, when a flurry of commentaries about the relative merits of GIS made their way into a number of geographic journals. The ensuing decade was marked by varying degrees of friction between GIS practitioners and their critics in human geography. Despite the methodological chasm between the two groups, little discussion of the implications of these differences has ensued. This article fills that gap with a historiographic examination of critiques of GIS. Critiques of GIS are organized into three waves or periods, each characterized by distinct arguments. The first wave, from 1990 to 1994, was marked by the intensity of debate as well as an emphasis on positivism. By 1995, the conversation waned as the number of critics grew, while GIS practitioners increasingly declined comment. This second wave marked the initiation of a greater degree of co-operation between GIS scholars and their critics, however. With the inception of the National Center for Geographic Information Analysis (NCGIA) Initiative 19, intended to study the social effects of GIS, many critics began to work closely with their peers in GIS. In the third wave, critiques of GIS expressed a greater commitment to the technology. Throughout the decade, debates about the technology shifted from simple attacks on positivism to incorporating more subtle analyses of the effects of the technology. These critiques have had considerable effect on the academic GIS community but are presently constrained by limited communication with GIS practitioners because of the absence of a common vocabulary. I argue that, if critiques of GIS are to be effective, they must find a way to address GIS researchers, using the language and conceptual framework of the discipline.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 396 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.