GIS is Dead – Long Live GIS
What is the state of GIS, and where is it going?
Wow, is it even possible to answer that? It seems to be the perpetual question asked at every GIS conference, and embedded into every keynote address given at them. In an attempt to describe the state of GIS, some (many?) are using the terms Paleo and Neo in an attempt to describe past and future tenses of all things geo/gis-related. I’m still not sure these are the correct words to use ( See my blog post titled “My Latest Lesson in GIS”), but they have become a part of the GIS nomenclature, none-the-less.
The impetus to write this post came from a recent discussion on Twitter about how to advise someone just entering the GIS field. It all started innocently enough with a Twitter post by Shawn Bichsel – “I’m meeting a potential #geonerd for lunch to spread the GIS gospel. What’s one piece advice you would give someone entering the GIS field” Shawn did a great job summarizing the responses to his question on his blog – Bixel Is Outside.
My response to that question was “New GISers should view GIS as a tool, not a profession. Need to know enviro, transp, engineer, planning, helath, web, etc…”. Then Justin Houk followed up with a tweet “I like your thinking don. You should do a post on your views of GIS as a profession.” And so, here it is.
GIS is a myth
I apologize for the abundance of Twitter quotes in this post, but there were so many great ideas flying around that day, it’s just easier explain my thought process by using them. Bill Dolans said in one of his most profound tweets ever: “IMO, GIS is a myth. There are info systems/apps that use spatial data and methods but GIS doesn’t exist.” This then led to a few more exchanges comparing GIS use and using computers as “text information systems”. And that’s when the light bulb lit up in my head. We are probably at a similar point in GIS evolution as word processing was 30 or 40 years ago.
GIS and Word Processing
People have been drawing maps and communicating through the written word for thousands of years. There was a time when Word Processing was as much a profession as GIS is today. Read this description of word processing from the Wikipedia article, and see if it looks familiar to you GIS folk:
[In the late 1960's] IBM defined the term in a broad and vague way as “The combination of people, procedures, and equipment which transforms ideas into printed communications,”
Now look at the definition of GIS from the ESRI website:
A geographic information system (GIS) integrates hardware, software, and data for capturing, managing, analyzing, and displaying all forms of geographically referenced information.
Actually, if I had defined GIS that way on a test in my intro to GIS class, without mentioning that a person was needed to operate it, I would have gotten that one wrong.
Anyway, what I’m trying to say is this:
- There were writers before word processors, and there still are, and always will be, writers.
- There were geospatial analysts before GIS, and there still are, and always will be, geospatial analysts.
- Word Processing is no longer a profession, but word processors are still being used as a tool in many other professions.
- GIS is on it’s way out as a profession, but GIS will continue to be used as a tool in many other professions.
My advice to someone that wants to get into the GIS field is – don’t, because it’s not going to be around much longer. What you should do is - get into a profession you really enjoy, and learn how to apply the various GIS tools to your work.
Interesting post! I agree that GIS folks must be skilled in another arena. My take is that GIS analysts are inherently similar to statisticians. (In fact some – though not enough – do qualify as statisticians. ) Both apply a certain class of tools and procedures to a variety of problems in wide-ranging fields. As you say, it serves us well to have a deep background in one field and use that expert knowledge to build a project from start to finish. But I expect there will continue to be room for folks to generalize in GIS applications, so long as they understand the spatial realm *and* communicate well enough to bridge gaps in topical specialty.
GIS proficiency, like statistics, does not come easily to everyone, so there will always be room for the consultant, whether private or public sector. If you’re afraid of commitment but communicate well, you may still have a future in GIS. But it wouldn’t hurt to take some straight stats courses, just in case…
I agree with you, with one major caveat: GIS as software is infinitely more complicated than word processing as software. I believe there will still be a demand for the next 10-20 years for GIS analysts and/or programmers who can do the highly specialized, esoteric aspects of GIS that demand an understanding beyond casual use. And this is going to be the part about GIS that differentiates it from word processing as a career.
I think on-demand web programs like Google Earth and Bing are going to evolve and become easier to use in such a way that the demand for basic GIS programmer is going to become extinct. But if you develop a background and understanding of how a particular industry operates, and you learn the complicated aspects of GIS that separates the amateurs from the professionals (such as scripting, etc.)… that will be what creates job security for the GIS professional.
Don,
I’ve been quietly ranting about this for a couple of years now. GIS is the name given to “doing nifty things with spatial data”. For a long time, these nifty things were a black art that required special software, and arcane training. These days are ending.
As spatial data becomes a first class data type in all databases, we’ll see much broader adoption and use of spatial data, albeit transparent to the end user for the most part. We’ll still have *some* analysts to do ad-hoc stuff, but for the most part, “where-ness” will be just as common, and easy to use as integer and text data types.
I think we can see this with ESRI releasing tools like MapIt – free of ArcObjects, this tool integrates directly with SQL 2008’s spatial data type. I think it’s still a little “GIS-y” in that it’s ALL ABOUT THE MAP, but it’s a step in the right direction. Over time I think we’ll just see the standardization of the “spatial data” input / display control – just like we have standard text areas, check boxes and drop downs. We’ll squirrel all the fancy overlays/intersects/topology checks away behind the scenes leaving the user blissfully unaware that “GIS” was even in the mix
Cheers,
Dave
I have long said “there is no such thing as GIS for the sake of GIS” – it takes a combination of many things to make it successful and effective.
Knowing how to swing a hammer does not confer knowledge of architecture or structural engineering.
GIS works hand-in-hand with other disciplines and domains in order to solve problems, just as the hammer works hand-in-hand with other disciplines, e.g. structural, HVAC, electrical, plumbing – to create a building.
As far as “neo” vs. “paleo” – that’s also long been overblown and overrated discussion fodder as well. Neo kids on the block come along and think they’ve reinvented the world. Yes, the mashups are cool – but once you get beyond the slippy map eye candy, it’s back to the question of “where’s the beef” i.e. analysis. Where IS the analysis? It’s more than just layers and basic visualization. The “paleo” folks have a wide variety of analytical tools and techniques yet unknown to the “neo” crowd.
Further, you have folks so wrapped up around web APIs and wrinkles that basic concepts of what makes good cartography starts to suffer, as things get juggled for efficient web delivery – not to mention, questions of geodesy and other things starting to dawn on the “neo” folks, which the “paleo” folks have already been dealing with for decades.
So – some of that “paleo” stuff IS still arcane.
So what does it all mean, and where do we all go with all of this? Likely things still continue as they have, with various partnerships, between geographers, domain experts in various fields, from law enforcement to archaeology and so on, to computer science folks, to remote sensing folks, even to social media, ambient data and crowdsourcing/mining and to the hackers and next-unrealized bunch of “neo” kids after the current crop, who find yet another set of great ways to exploit technology to further the cause. Still no “GIS for the sake of GIS” – but instead, continued strength through synergies.
From John Snow’s 1854 London Cholera outbreak visualization (and even prior) to the present, things just keep evolving. Techniques may have changed, but the basic idea has not, it’s just been ever more empowered.
Great discussion. I want to add that this way of thinking suggests that instead of teaching GIS (like we used to teach word processing?), we need to use it across the curriculum (like we do word processing!). The long term future of education in GIS is not teaching GIS, but rather using it across the curriculum. That’s not easy to sell or implement, but I believe it’s the way forward.
The other thing to bear in mind, I think, is that “desktop GIS” is slowly dying, so learning it is not a long term career move.
The twitter side of this yesterday was my best twitter experience so far… maybe I’m finding my flock! :-)
I was going to bring up Geographic Information Science, but saw @Taleisn’s tweet of link to Dawn Wright’s article, so that’s covered there.
Also related in my mind: “education vs. training” conversations. To me, education is about learning to ask good questions, training is about how to use tools to answer given questions, i.e., science vs. tools.
I particularly agree with Don’s closing recommendation: get into a profession you really enjoy, and learn how to apply the various GIS tools to your work.
[...] [...]
[...] Meltz blogs his thoughts on the myth of the GIS professional in his post, “GIS is Dead – Long Live GIS“. By comparing GIS to Word Processing, Meltz draws the conclusion that viewing GIS as a [...]
URISA has struggled with an issue tangential to this – but still very closely aligned. Since URISA is an education-based professional society, we try to do our best to offer the best services/networking/educational opportunities/etc to our membership (and of course to attract more members in the process!).
Way back in the day – before there even was something commonly known as GIS – the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association was formed to provide a place for *technology* as it became more ubiquitous in local and regional government (on those fancy new 8088s). As GIS evolved, URISA was the only game in town for people looking to learn about GIS. But that was 40ish years ago and now there are lots of organizations for geospatial folks to find kinship and continued learning.
So URISA struggles to figure out how to carve out a niche in a market that didn’t have niches when it first started.
We started thinking of ourselves at the place for the GIS (or geospatial) Professional.* I really like that as a market niche for URISA – it allows for people who really run GIS applications, say an enterprise system within a larger government IT operation, as members. It also allows for folks like me (and you?) who need to use GIS (with varying degrees of technical skill) in our daily jobs – and it’s vital to that work.
*I’m not talking about GISP as a certification – that’s a whole different conversation.
IIRC, this discussion is at least 17 years old. I remember back that long, hearing and discussing whether GIS was a discipline unto itself, or a tool used within disciplines. Of course, it was, and is, both.
I also recall back then that there was much discussion about spatial data development being conducted in an institutional way (SDI now?) or on a project-as-needed basis (Google now?). Still the same discussion.
My favorite history professor used to begin each class by hanging one of those beautiful old rolled maps (this particular one of Europe) at the front of the room. Every exam he gave had a geographic component and, whenever a student would complain about it, he would say: “History happens some time and some PLACE.” He was a cantankerous old pain in the ass, but he had a point. And I don’t think he even realized that he was ‘doing GIS’.
I think many of us tend to lose sight of the fact that ‘GIS’ was around long before computers were. For years now, I’ve been pointing to the fact that a phone book is a geographic information system. Think about it – it’s a bunch of data, geographically located. Isn’t that – in a nutshell – what GIS IS?
I know that phone books lack maps, but I also know that GIS can exist without maps. It doesn’t happen very often, but it does, indeed, happen. And maybe if it happened more often, we’d all be a little less confused about what GIS actually is. The heavy reliance on maps tends to make us think that GIS is geographically determined. It’s not. Rather, it’s geographically INFORMED. There’s a difference, and it’s an important one.
[...] reminded of Chris’s thoughts. The first was Don Meltz’s blog post+comments “GIS is Dead – Long Live GIS“, and the second was an article in ArcNews, “GIS Professionals Lead the GeoWeb [...]
[...] Is This “GIS” Of Which You Speak? Posted on 27 October 2009 by Bill Dollins Don Meltz has kicked off the most recent round of discussion about the nature/state of “GIS” (I put that [...]
These thoughts have been burning in me for a couple of years. I started blogging on them last year before I finally left GIS after 13 years:
http://whatsur20.blogspot.com/2008/05/gis-has-not-changed-since-1995.html
Response to Adena Schutzberg’s comment -
Thanks for the feedback Adena. I’ve seen the recommendation that we change the way GIS is taught mentioned in a few other places in this discussion, and I agree wholeheartedly with that. When I took my first GIS classes in grad school, the only department that offered them was the planning and geography department. That was 8 years ago, and I don’t think that situation has changed much. However, I disagree with the notion that learning desktop GIS is not a long term career move. The growth of GIS is not happening in one direction, it’s happening in all directions. The fact that we see tremendous growth in the online application of GIS does not mean there is movement away from the desktop side of things. Desktop might be growing at a slower rate, (or maybe it’s just under the radar), but growing it is. In fact, my advice to “…get into a profession you really enjoy, and learn how to apply the various GIS tools to your work.” more often than not, will require the use of desktop GIS. There is only so much one can do with online/web-based GIS tools. Complex spatial analysis needs the horsepower that only desktop GIS can provide. Web-based tools will never be able to satisfy all of my needs as a planner.
[...] up in recent days – see the comments from Sean Gorman, Steven Feldman (well, citing me) and Don Meltz among others. My personal perspective is about the educational aspect of this [...]
What a fantastic discussion. Due to the number of Certified GIS Professionals, the history of the computer being used for spatially focused purposes and the evidence of a market (jobs, contracts, projects, and academic discourse); I pose the challenge that there is in fact a GIS Profession at this time. The dynamics of society and rapid change could render this to not be true at some time in the future, however, today there seems to be a readily identifiable number of people who see themselves as GIS Professionals.
GIS is a powerful tool for all kinds of occupational specializations but we will always need professionals. Maps are are often thought to reflect objective truth when in actuality, all maps lie, and we have to be careful about where we lie and where we tell the truth.
I see people using GIS all the time who don’t understand basic geospatial concepts. I also see lots of terrible cartography: un-intuitive symbolization, ineffecient use of page space, cluttered symbolization, and not understanding the limitations of the data they are using, which can lead to unintelligible or deceptive maps. I talk to a lot of people who use GIS but dont understand the basics of database theory.
Per Terry’s remark about the history professor who did not realize he was using GIS, that’s because he was using GEOGRAPHY. GIS uses automated tools to link data to spatial locations. Geography and cartography have been around a lot longer than GIS and I think we tend to conflate the tool with the underlying science and knowledge base.
Per the word processing methaphor, we all know a lot more about writing than we think we do. We were taught the skills beginning in kindergarten and they did not stop teaching us until we were done with school. Geography is a second string subject, not taught at most grade levels, rarely taught by professionals and often reduced to memorization of state captials. GIS makes it easy to make a map, but making a good map takes a lot more.
This thread leads Muki Haklay (above) to pose a rhetorical question: what is master’s level education in geographic information science and technology (GIS&T) for? The thread came to my attention while leading a graduate seminar on professionalism in GIS&T. In the seminar I stress that thought leaders should be expected to marshal evidence and solid reasoning when making claims about the professions that occupy the GIS&T field. Don’s claim–that “GIS is on it’s way out as a profession”–is provocative, and usefully so (it has provoked several responses from our class). However, the claim is based neither on evidence nor sound reasoning. No evidence is presented that the number of individuals seeking careers or already employed as GIS professionals is declining, because there is no such evidence. And in place of reasoning there is only a weak analogy to word processing. As Sean Gorman points out, statistics is a more apt comparison, and it is anything but declining as a profession. Muki concludes that the masters degree is an opportunity to “focus on principles and on improving specific skills” beyond the standard GIS driver’s license. The most basic of those principles, perhaps, is that scholarship still counts.
Thanks for the discussion!
I cant say i agree that GIS is a dying profession but more a profession that continues to develop as do all professions.
I recall my job 15 years ago to my job now and how much being a GIS professional has changed in those times. I recall using GIS when there wasnt a GUI interface… my how times have changed.
Just because the tools of a profession are seen to be becomming simpler and facets of GIS are being incorporated into daily lives doesnt mean a profession is dying, nor does it mean that one shouldnt pursue a future with it. Tools of almost all trades develop, become simpler and make their way into the public arena but there will always be a need for those who really know what they are doing. Any one can make a map but that doesnt mean your working in GIS it just means you have the basic skills to use some of the tools GIS professionals use.
Very interesting to hear different points of view. A great discussion.
[...] [...]
In no way is GIS a dying field. I work in Global Census and every govt office is strapped in terms of GIS expertise. I think people that do not understand GIS (unfortunately often statisticians) tend to say it is dying. Ive been in the field for 15 years.
BTW…I can do any calculation SAS SPSS can do using GIS.
My 2 cents