Professor Duane F. Marble
Department of Geography
The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio 43210
marble.1@osu.edu
Introduction
It has been a quarter of a century since the first formal courses in GIS appeared in a U.S. geography department. These initial courses were strongly oriented toward the geography/computer science interface since the availability of GIS technology then was generally at the "if you want it, you will have to build it" level. As a result, most of the GIS students of that era emerged well equipped to made substantial contributions not only to the ongoing development of GIS technology, but also to the new areas of geographic research that were opening up as this technology slowly became available.
Over the ensuing years the focus of GIS education in geography has shifted significantly, but unfortunately this shift has not been one that permits many of today’s geographers to take full advantage of the burgeoning capabilities of the technology. As GIS technology has become generally available, as well as more user–friendly, an erroneous notion developed in some quarters that these changes mean that the technology can be mastered by almost anyone with only a minimal investment of intellectual effort. This has led a number of academic units to structure their programs so that only an introductory course in GIS (and often one that concentrates only upon the details of operating a specific, off–the–shelf software package) is all that is considered necessary to fully make use of this now powerful tool. This is much like using statistical software without knowing much about statistics!
Hand in hand with this dilution of GIS education has also gone the notion that individuals in the discipline with an interest in the further technical development of GIS are somehow not doing "real geography." This represents an aberrant attitude in which we see a supposedly scientific discipline rejecting not only participation in the further development of a powerful tool of widely demonstrated utility, but also ineffectively training its students in making use of the tool as currently structured.
This shift in focus has led to the creation of a generation of geographers, and many others interested in the application of GIS technology, who are, at best, able to apply perhaps 10% of the power of the technology, and this often incorrectly. The present attitude, if it is allowed to continue, will turn out to be unfortunate for the discipline of geography, for the GIS industry and for those hundreds of thousands of individuals and organizations who are finally finding out that "geography really matters" through their exposure to the highly useful products of GIS technology.
GIS and Geographic Research
The application of GIS technology is rapidly changing the spatial structure of society as well as the way that individuals live and work in a spatial–temporal context. Failure to recognize this, together with the notion being put forward by some individuals that GIS technology is somehow "wrong," lies at the root of the present problem. As geographic researchers we are generally failing to advantage of the substantial increase in scope provided by the widespread availability of GIS technology. Not only are new analytic capabilities now possible, but the volume of detailed spatial data available to us has increased by several orders of magnitude. The situation in spatial analysis today is much like that of traditional cartographers suddenly confronted the tools of modern color graphics – a common response is just to ignore the massive increase in scope and to continue to do very much what was done before. The need in spatial analysis today is not for further polishing of existing tools and ideas, but rather to realize that we can now move on to a host of exciting new research areas that GIS technology makes possible. I suggested some years ago that GIS technology would have a significant impact upon the definition and execution of research problems in geography and the other social sciences (Marble, 1990), but this change has yet to gather significant momentum. One reason for this is the low level and non–technical nature of the GIS education that is currently available.
The traditional lack of effective tools for handling large volumes of complex spatial data has led traditional spatial analysts to make substantial simplifications in the spatial problems that they addressed (see, for example, the comments in Marble, 1998). An obvious example may be seen in the one–dimensional assumptions that implicitly underlie much of our current work: it seems that while distance matters, direction does not. This reduction in the spatial dimensionality of the analysis (not to mention the important missing temporal component) reflects the analyst’s perceived need for simplicity when faced with a highly complex spatial–temporal world. Yet another major problem area is encountered when we examine the question of the scale at which many geographic analyses take place. The common use of larger instead of smaller analysis areas again represents an attempt by the analyst to avoid complexity through the assumption of areal homogeneity when such an assumption is highly doubtful (e.g., research based upon Census tracts when comparable block group data is available).
The existence of GIS technology does not instantly "solve" these analytic problems, but it does provide an available framework that will permit geographic researchers to eliminate outdated approaches and to significantly increase the scope of our work. The result, if we make use of our new tools and improved spatial data correctly, will be a significant advancement in our understanding of the spatial and temporal structure of society.
GIS Education and the GIS Workforce
The rapidly increasing use of GIS technology in nearly all segments of society has placed substantial stresses upon the industrial base responsible for development of the technology and upon those organizations, both public and private, who are rapidly making it an integral part of their day to day operations. Not only are there tens of thousands of new users to be trained, but the technology development process itself requires the presence of many individuals with substantial skill levels in both geography and computer science. Geographers without computer science and computer scientists without geography are no substitute for the type of invaluable, cross–disciplinary education and training that has served so well in the past. However individuals with this combination of skills are becoming increasingly difficult to identify in today’s job market.
A recent study by the Information Technology Association of America notes that one job in ten in the general information technology (IT) area is currently going unfilled (ITAA, 1977; and Oracle, 1997). I would suggest, based on my experience, that of those that are filled, at least two of these represent less than optimal hiring decisions. I am also quite certain that conditions in the GIS industry, because of its specialized requirements, are even worse than what ITAA reports for the overall IT industry. There is clearly a very strong and increasing demand for individuals who are educated to a level where they can effectively work with, and continue to develop, modern GIS technology. It is also clear that today most geography departments are not graduating students with these capabilities.
I believe, and so do others in both academia and industry, that we must move to rectify the present dangerous situation by immediately revitalizing what has become a diminishing segment of GIS education. The basis for accomplishing this is to encourage a much stronger melding of geography and computer science. If this occurs, then we will be able to meet the rapidly growing need for well–educated geographers in the world outside of academia and, at the same time, significantly improve the quality of geographic teaching and research in our colleges and universities.
An Outcome–Oriented Model of GIS Education
What needs to be done? Before elaborating on this let me establish a
little context by examining my personal view of GIS education. For some
years I have used a simple, outcome–oriented model of GIS activities. First
I ask the individual the question "what do you want to do in geography
and GIS?" and then I place their response within the context of my simple
model. From this I can then suggest appropriate paths leading to the level
of competency desired. The model is shown in graphic form in Figure 1.
I have used a pyramid form (yes, it is really 3–D in order to accommodate
the many building blocks that make up the more detailed view) and a look
at the general levels of this pyramid will establish a context for my subsequent
suggestions..
Figure 1
Basic Elements: The Foundation
At the bottom of the pyramid we see a foundation of basic elements. These represent the items that the individual must have in hand before he or she can successfully venture into the realm of GIS. Here we encounter such items as basic cartography (e.g., notions of scale, projections, elements of map design, etc.), basic spatial analysis (including statistics), computing (programming concepts, methods of data organization, etc.) and the development of what I call "thinking spatially." This latter element is one of the most critical building blocks and refers to the ability of the individual to identify the active spatial components of any given problem. Many people are never able to do this and strangely some disciplines (even those with an explicit spatial component) do not seem to develop it in their students. Geography departments teach tens of thousands of students from other disciplines each year but commonly fail to develop this critical facility in these individuals. Failure to acquire a basic understanding of all of these components leads to subsequent errors and inefficiency in the individual’s use of GIS technology.
The First Operational Level: Routine Uses of GIS Technology
Just above Basic Spatial and Computer Understanding we encounter the initial operational level labeled Routine Use of Basic GIS Technology. Here the individual is expected to have a working grasp of the foundation materials and also to know enough about GIS to make effective use of basic components of GIS technology and to use GIS applications created by others. An example might be a social science researcher who is using, say, ESRI’s ArcView to create simple overlays or to make a fairly standard map. For individuals who routinely perform at this level we would expect that if an operation is accessible from the interface tool bar, then the individual should be able to handle it – and understand it – without too great an effort.
Regretfully, I encounter many people working at this level who have skipped over some of the fundamentals and, as a result, make stupid mistakes in their work. Indifference to critical scale considerations represents a common example of this type of error. Producing really awful, and sometimes misleading, maps is yet another. Failing to realize that there is far more that can be done with GIS technology is by far the worst! Beyond mastering the elements contained in the Basic Spatial and Computer Understanding level, a good, semester–length introduction to GIS course with substantial laboratory work is the most common entry requirement to this level of my pyramid. A critical component of this initial course must be the development of a working knowledge of the full scope of GIS technology.
The Second Level: A Major Increase in Competence is Required
Above the Routine Use ... level we encounter a bold, dashed line in the diagram. This line represents the presence of a really significant amount of education and training that must be undertaken before any effective approach to the upper portion of the applications use level (Higher Level Modelling Applications) is possible. To rise above my dashed line, the individual must be prepared to make a substantial investment in learning about formal approaches to spatial analysis and his or her ability to "think spatially" must be highly developed. Also, to operate effectively at this level, the individual needs a good grasp of basic computer programming (C, C++ and Visual Basic are common languages today) as well as at least an introductory understanding of database systems. I would expect individuals capable of operating routinely at this level to be able to structure and operate complex models using Tomlin’s Map Algebra, intelligently utilize the routing and service area assignment models found in GIS extensions such as ESRI’s Network module, devise and implement their own models within the scope of "off–the–shelf" GIS technology, etc. This level of competence will, of course, require perhaps two or more intermediate courses in the GIS area.
Beyond basic GIS and modeling competence, the individual who expects to routinely operate at this level must also be capable of undertaking, and understanding, within the context of their own problems, analyses of the type that Peter Fisher (1993) carried out so well for viewshed algorithms. This implies not only a knowledge of algorithms in general, but also of the way in which they are implemented within the GIS. A good course on algorithms with particular emphasis on GIS algorithms and data structures is clearly a must. This, with the two applications–oriented courses noted above, represents over a year of work specifically in the GIS area.
The Third Level: Creating Applications Instead of Using Them
The next higher level of the pyramid addresses GIS Application Design and Development. At this level, over and above all the basic uses of GIS technology, including routine modeling, the individual must be able to develop and implement sophisticated GIS applications that may involve substantial spatial analysis and modeling components. At this level a number of computer science elements such as programming, software engineering and advanced database systems are drawn upon quite heavily as well as other significant elements from geography and spatial analysis. Programming skills at the professional level are required. The level of knowledge of existing GIS technology must be at a comparable level; this does not necessarily imply additional GIS course work but certainly substantially more depth can be developed thru project work. Professional level skills in modeling and spatial analysis are required in some cases (e.g., when working with complex logistics applications) and are certainly needed by anyone contemplating going on to higher levels of the pyramid.
The Fourth Level: Placing GIS Technology in a New Context
The next level of the pyramid deals with GIS System Design. Here we find individuals who are trained in high–level system analysis and whose primary professional concern is with the implementation of GIS technology in complex situations where it has not been previously utilized. Work at this level is most often encountered in non–academic settings (universities seldom generate problems of suitable magnitude). The elements of systems analysis and GIS design should be taught to all GIS students who plan to work above the most routine levels although relatively few institutions currently do so. The professional GIS system analyst must be highly competent at everything contained in the first two levels and must fully understand all that goes on in the third level although his or her programming skills may not be at a professional level. It should be explicitly noted that the development of GIS design methodologies is an are of considerable academic research interest.
Individuals wishing to operate at this level need intensive work in all forms of systems analysis and design, including database design and the design of user interfaces. I have found that there is no substitute for including a real world project as part of the "GIS design studio." This project should address nearly all levels of GIS design (see Marble, 1995) and, if possible, be complemented by a subsequent course where a moderately complex system is actually implemented (as suggested by Mike DeMers of New Mexico State University).
The Tip of the Pyramid: Research and New Tool Development
Finally we reach the top of my pyramid! Here we find a relatively small group of individuals deeply immersed in GIS and geographic research and development activities. Highly trained in geography, spatial analysis and computer science they are capable of creating new analytic approaches and algorithms and/or implementing them as part of powerful software tools for subsequent GIS application. These individuals who are working at the top of my conceptual pyramid must be capable of understanding and, if necessary, carrying out any activities normally associated with the lower levels of the pyramid. They are in exceedingly short supply today and their contributions are critical to the continued growth and development of the GIS industry. I would also argue that they are perhaps the only major group who are capable of fully integrating GIS technology into much of geographic research and of using this integrated technology to make major advances in our knowledge of the spatial structure of society.
Some Observed Structural Problems
As noted at the beginning of these remarks, the general emphasis in GIS education has shifted significantly over the last two decades away from a relatively close integration of computer science and geography. This has led to the great majority of persons who are "educated" in GIS attaining competence only at the very lowest operational level of my pyramid. Little or no attention is being paid in most programs to the education of individuals who desire to reach the higher levels of the pyramid. Even worse, many of these students are not even being made aware that more powerful manifestations of the basic tool exist!
Today, many institutions are offering little beyond an introductory course in GIS, often taught by individuals whose competency level is only modestly higher than that of the students in their class and who mistakenly focus upon software training rather than critical concepts and skills. The base of the pyramid has been widening at an explosive rate while the upper levels have been permitted to crumble. This situation, if allowed to continue, will certainly be disastrous to the future of the GIS industry and to the reputation and intellectual content of the discipline of geography.
Hand in hand with this myopic focus on the lowest level of the pyramid we are also finding an increasing amount of sand in the foundations. We need to find a better way of preparing individuals who are not initially seeking great depth in their encounter with GIS technology. Somehow we must encapsulate the critical items that are now spread over several courses and make them more readily available. Pragmatically, if we tell people that they cannot "do" GIS without first taking several courses then I suspect they will simply ignore us. The solution here appears to be to devise a rigorous yet useful first course that will provide a sound initial foundation for individuals who want to learn GIS and that also makes extensive use of GIS technology in its presentation. Those individuals who have or subsequently develop a desire for deeper engagement with GIS can then be encouraged to seek out the more extensive, traditional basic courses in parallel with further work in GIS.
Rebuilding the Top of the Pyramid
Clearly, we must significantly raise our current level of GIS education and we must do so with some haste if we are to keep pace with the rapid pace of technological advancement. First, we must in all GIS education programs firm up our presentation of both fundamental concepts and of the full scope of the technology. We must cease confusing mastery of software commands with attaining a grasp of critical intellectual concepts. We also must insure that those who teach our introductory GIS courses are competent professionals who fully understand the substantive structure of the technology.
With respect to the critical upper levels of the pyramid, we must immediately reestablish the strong role of computer science education within GIS and at the same time restructure all of our GIS educational activities so that this greater competence in computing is fully integrated into the structure of these activities. This clearly implies that there will be advanced, and highly technical, courses offered in GIS and that our notion of a curriculum in this area will advance beyond attempts to specify the content of one or two introductory courses to a full–fledged examination what spectrum of courses is required to make up an adequate GIS education at each level of the pyramid. We need to have a firm idea of what specific sequence of courses should be taken by a variety of individuals. For example:
References
Association for Computing Machinery, 1991a. ACM Curricula Recommendations Volume I: Computing Curricula 1991. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
________, 1991b. ACM Curricula Recommendations Volume II: Information Systems. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
Bennion, Frank, Barry Capper and David Unwin, 1997. Professional Development for the Geographic Information Industry. London: Association for Geographic Information. [Draft]
Fisher, Peter F., 1993. "Algorithm and implementation uncertainty in viewshed analysis," International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 331–347.
Information Technology Association of America, 1997. Help Wanted: The IT Workforce Gap At the Dawn of a New Century. Arlington, VA: ITAA.
Laurini, R. and D. Thompson, 1992. Fundamentals of Spatial Information Systems. London: Academic Press.
Marble, Duane F., 1990. "The potential methodological impact of geographic information systems on the social sciences," in Allen, Zubrow and Green (eds.), Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology. London: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
________, 1994. "An introduction to the structured design of geographic information systems," in David Green and David Rix (eds.) The AGI Source Book for GIS. London: Association for Geographical Information and John Wiley & Sons.
________, review of Longley and Batty (eds.), 1998. Spatial Analysis: Modelling in a GIS Environment, forthcoming in the International Journal of Geographical Information Science.
Oracle Corporation, 1997. Oracle© Academic Initiative: The IT Shortage. An Oracle White Paper.
Worboys, Michael, 1995. GIS: A Computing Perspective. London: Taylor & Francis.