I See Data!!!

I think every social scientist, including hyper-humanists, should have a basic working knowledge of computer programs that enable the analysis of quantitative data, both purely numerical and visual. Many reject quantitative approaches, arguing that they misconstrue relationships, reduce them to abstractions, and/or predetermine our analyses of them. In archaeology, this critique targeted the application of approaches from economic geography and, frankly, any approach that smelled positivist (see Tilley 1994). I recall a quote from Heidegger:

“The space provided for in this mathematical manner may be called ‘space,’ the ‘one’ space as such. But in this sense ‘the’ space, ‘space,’ contains no spaces and no places” (Heidegger 1993:333).

As someone who uses GIS fairly regularly, I often see or hear the notion that GIS users have insufficiently dealt with this critique. Perhaps, though this is surely an over-simplification. And I bet that researchers making innovations with view shed analyses and line of site analyses might disagree--as would those researchers attempting to incorporate temporal change into spatial analysis.

The critique of the power of the map is another challenge. When we make maps, we make decisions about size, area, length, orientation, etc. These decisions are ideally connected to the questions we ask. So a projection that preserves area might be better than one that preserves length. UTMs might be good for site maps given the nature of excavation methods, but they might be ineffective at smaller scales (by which I mean more macro-level representations).  Simultaneously, however, these decisions reflect our socialized perspectives of the way the world works. For many westerners, the south is down and the north is up, but there is really no good reason behind this representation. I wonder if anyone recalls the episode of The West Wing with the Cartographers for Social Equality. They attempted to lobby for a new map of the world, using a projection that preserves area over length, and to reposition the global south on the top. The scene is depicted humorously. CJ says, "You're freaking me out." But the arguments they make are valid. Here's a youtube link to the clip I found:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8zBC2dvERM

So, what is the point of this post? Well, good question. It is only by studying the material world--through the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of empirical data--that we can see, document, and understand the social constitution of space as well as offer substantive critiques of spatial configurations that reinforce inequality and power. This process also is, well, intrinsically fascinating and, at times, fun.

There are data everywhere. Population data, climate data, satellite data, economic data, etc., etc. There are also many, many programs out there to process and analyze such data; some are free. Over the past several years I have compiled numerous links to data sources. I am going to create an "I See Data" gadget on the site to enable the active sharing of data. Much of these data are free. Including areal photos and satellite imagery. All it takes is a will to jump in and not be afraid to figure things out. These data are useful for research and also for pedagogy.

Anyway, I will add some to this blog today and keep adding them as the days progress.


Heidegger, M.
1993 Building Dwelling Thinking. In Basic Writings, edited by D. Farrell Krell, pp. 323-339.
Routledge, London.

Tilley, C.
1994 A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments. Berg, Oxford.