Abstract
Qualitative geographic information systems (qual-GIS) incorporates nonquantitative data into GIS, integrates qualitative data collection and analysis with quantitative spatial analysis facilitated by GIS, adopts epistemologies typically associated with qualitative research, or a combination of these. Qual-GIS is simultaneously represented as a spatially oriented organizer of qualitative data, a mixed-methods research approach, and an open-ended style of knowledge making. Qual-GIS emerged as a response to criticisms that GIS is rigidly embedded in positivist epistemologies. In the 1990s, GIS supporters and critics debated the implications of GIS on society (see the separate Oxford Bibliographies in Geography article “Geographic Information Science”). The National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (NCGIA) organized a series of meetings to bring GIS practitioners and social geographers together to address this debate. In 1993, these specialists met in Friday Harbor, Washington, and developed a research agenda to better understand the implications of GIS on society. This meeting resulted in a series of publications, including a 1995 special issue of Cartography and Geographic Information Systems (“GIS and Society: Towards a Research Agenda”; see Sheppard 1995, cited under GIS Critiques), with research papers and essays that focused on GIS ethics, technocracy, practices, and politics. A companion book edited by John Pickles titled Ground Truth: The Social Implications of Geographic Information Systems (see Pickles 1995, cited under GIS Critiques) provided a more theoretical critique of spatial technologies. NCGIA also held a specialist meeting in 1996 about Initiative 19, titled “GIS and Society: The Social Implications of How People, Space, and Environment Are Represented in GIS,” to further develop this research agenda (see Harris and Weiner 1996, cited under GIS Critiques). With these works as a beginning, progressively more researchers acknowledged GIS as socially constructed, and qual-GIS emerged as an alternative. Politics of knowledge production with GIS were especially significant given the technology’s use in community planning. Researchers and practitioners began to more widely promote the general public’s participation in the development and use of GIS (see the separate Oxford Bibliographies in Geography article “Public Participation GIS, Participatory GIS, and Participatory Mapping”). Incorporating local and indigenous knowledges into GIS has become a popular research agenda. Some human geographers, seeking to reconfigure what they consider a positivist and exclusive technology, advance a version of GIS with a critical edge that analyzes subjective rather than objective data, recognizes partiality of knowledge, and promotes alternative geographies (e.g., critical, feminist, queer, affective, and nonrepresentational GIS). Relevant qual-GIS case studies include projects that organize and subsequently visualize qualitative and subjective data. Qual-GIS could contain multimedia (e.g., images, audio, and video), ethnographic (e.g., narrative text about human experiences, perceptions, and emotions; maps sketched by participants), and historical (e.g., past events, temporal changes) data; however, considerable limitations exist regarding their cartographic representation. Qualitative data collection methods (e.g., in-depth interviews, oral life histories, participant observations, surveys, and sketch mapping) are joined parallel with GIS analysis and visualization but are performed as separate steps. Triangulation validates data sets and results by using multiple and mixed methods. Researchers have advanced the capabilities of existing GIS software to also perform qualitative data analysis. Qual-GIS is used in the humanities as well (e.g., historical GIS, narrative GIS). The topics in this article represent the disciplinary trajectories and debates that led to or influenced qual-GIS, and primary ways that qual-GIS is understood by its applicants.