And if Geospatial Data Infrastructures were fragmented and Splintering?
In conclusion: institutionalisation of GDI as a unifying concept?
Not surprisingly, the aforementioned perspectives for looking at GDIs do have much in common. All revolve around GDIs to be embedded within broader social structures. It also becomes clear that GDIs are not “given” and static concepts but emerge in a process of continuous negotiation between heterogeneous groups of actors. In addition, effective and sustained operation of GDIs requires continuous support. Like with other application of (geographic) information technology, support structures are needed for professionals and users, for system’s maintenance, and for organizational operations and responsibilities. Support also have to deal with conditions for the acceptance of geographic information technology and its resulting information, with conditions for sustained operation after implementation, and with the ability to cope with change. Support structures do not emerge and do not continue to exist automatically. They need (political) commitment . Support, in turn, would imply that those who will provide for it consider the GDI as relevant for the often-problematic situation they face. Finally, GDIs are a special case of geographic information technology in that they are generally not confined to a specific organization. Moreover, GDIs have to deal with other than conventional spatial data and information as well . In short, GDIs are embedded within broader societal systems (or contexts) – be it at the national or at local level – in which they facilitate communication and sharing of data and information almost as taken-for-granted between wide varieties of actors.
When GDIs are embedded within social groups or within society at large then they must fit within existing cultures and institutions. Culture is the shared ways of thinking and believing that grow out of a group experience and are passed from one generation to the next. It is the way of life, the knowledge, beliefs, customs, and skills available to its members. Specifically, it refers to the deeper level of basic assumptions and beliefs that define in a basic taken-for-granted fashion a group's view of itself and its environment. These assumptions and beliefs are learned responses to the group's problems of survival in its external environment and its problems of internal integration. An institution is an established way of organizing social life and a pattern that is valued by the group. It is a stable cluster of norms and normative behaviours that develops around a basic social need. One of the distinguishing characteristics of an institution is its normative impact on behaviour of individuals. In this sense, institutions are part of the host culture. Institutions can take the form of rules, enforcement mechanism, and of organisations. The sociological view, however, implies that institutions must have a normative impact on behaviour; whether they are organisations or not.
Societies are tied together through institutional arrangements. These are not static however. Existing institutional arrangements may become less effective due to changing conditions within the local society and within its external environment. Some existing institutions may weaken or even cease to exist. New institutions may emerge. Because social systems are evolutionary and adaptive, their social needs will change and, hence, their institutional arrangements may evolve as well. This dynamics of institutional development is an essential characteristic of institutions and depends on how well the institution addresses a social need. In heterogeneous social groups and societies institutional development will be different for different sub-cultures .
Institutions can be formal or informal; the latter being specifically rooted within local societies (communities). For the world’s poor, informal institutions play a primary role in running their affairs. In richer countries, formal institutions complement informal ones . Some view modern information and communication technologies, like e-mail and internet, their promises for participation, and, specifically, their ‘virtualisation’ of reality as adding to or, sometimes, replacing earlier institutions of the state . In effect, for some the world is becoming a ‘global village’ .
From the foregoing, it would then follow that from an institutional point of view GDIs have a two-way relation with the societies in which they are implicated. First, GDIs must fit within – or at least be compatible with – existing institutional arrangements. In short, institutional arrangements matter for the information flows within society and thus for GDIs. Second, GDIs themselves could play an institutional role within society. From the earlier sections it may be clear, however, that some caution is appropriate when considering the potentially institutional role of (geographic) information technologies or modern information and communication technologies in general. They may bring social inclusion as well as social exclusion. Both access to such technologies and ‘literacy’ in their use is not necessarily evenly distributed socially and geographically. In addition, ‘becoming a global village’ may also bring with it loss of local social context and alienation.
The view that GDIs themselves could play an institutional role is fruitful for several reasons. First, it focuses on the effectiveness of GDIs in dealing with commonly felt problems in society. (The sociological view of institutions would refer to such problems as to “social needs”.) In other words: GDIs are means to ends and not the ends themselves. Second, the institutionalisation paradigm revolves around actors and their problem-solving behaviour. Institutionalisation would then refer to an ongoing process within a group or society whereby a concrete GDI is being valued and gains a strong and (almost) normative impact on common perceptions of spatial problems and, subsequently, on collective actions to remedy these problems . This process of becoming collectively valued, in turn, is conducive for the required support for GDIs. Participation in the design, operation and use of a GDI is key to its institutionalisation. Finally, the institutionalisation paradigm brings the earlier mentioned perspectives together but does not replace them. Institutionalisation of GDIs is no panacea, however. One cannot create and impose institutions from outside. All we can do is to look for conditions for institutionalisation; some minimum degree of togetherness and homogeneity. Strong social cleavages within groups and communities pose barriers in communication as we have seen before . But what are in those cases the institutional bonds that keep society still together? Can we still speak of “social problems” or are we faced with sets of individual and group problems? The institutional paradigm emphasises societal feasibility and acceptance of technical solutions like GDIs rather than their sophistication. It points at the often-needed strengthening of existing public institutions and creation of functional redundancy of public services – a condition prevailing in most developing countries. It also bears the promise that once accepted and valued, the emergence of GDIs in society become a self-propelling process. In this respect, the institutional paradigm does not deny the continuous processes of negotiation and “translation” of GDIs but suggests conditions for stability and – eventually – sustainability. The institutionalisation paradigm, so to speak, contributes to the formulation of terms-of-reference for socially accepted and valued GDIs. In this respect, institutionalisation of GDIs is a truly unifying concept.
References
Argyris, Chr., and D.A. Schön, 1978. Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. Reading Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Bijker, Wiebe E., 1995. Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: towards a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Bijker, Wiebe E. and John Law (eds), 1992. Shaping technology/building society; studies in sociotechnical change. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Broom, L., P. Selznick, and D. Broom-Darroch, 1981. Sociology (7th ed), New York: Harper and Row.
Caiden, N., and A. Wildavsky, 1974. Planning and budgeting in poor countries. New York: Wiley.
Callon, Michel, 1980. Struggles and Negotiations to define what is Problematic and what is not: the Sociology of Translation, pages 197-219. In: Karin D. Knorr, Roger Krohn, and Richard D Whitley (eds), The Social Process of Scientific Investigation: Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, 4, Dordrecht and Boston, Mass.
Callon, Michel, 1986. Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of Saint Brieuc Bay, pages 196-233. In: John Law (ed.), Power, Action and Belief: a new Sociology of Knowledge? Sociological Review Monograph, 32. London: Routledge.
Credé, Andreas and Robin Mansell (eds.), 1998. ITCs in Developing Countries. Booklet I: The Importance for Sustainable Development. The Hague: IICD.
Coleman, J. S., 1976. Community disorganization and urban problems, in: Merton, R. K. and Nisbet, R. A. (eds), Contemporary social problems (4th ed). New Yoek: Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich.
De Man, W.H.Erik, 1988. Establishing a geographical information system in relation to its use; a process of strategic choices. Int. Journal of GIS, Vol. 2, 3, 245-261;
De Man, W.H.Erik, 2000. Institutionalization of Geographic Information Technologies: Unifying Concept? Cartography and Geographic Information Science, Vol. 27, 2, 139-151.
De Man, W.H.Erik and Willem van den Toorn, 2002. Culture and the adoption and use of GIS within organisations. Int. Journal of Appl. Earth Observation and Geoinformatics (JAG), 4, pp. 51-63.
De Swaan, A., 2001. Words of the world: the global language system. Cambridge/Oxford: Polity Press/Blackwell Publishers.
Douglas, M., 1978. Cultural Bias (Occasional Paper no. 35. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland).
Frissen, P., 1999. De lege staat (in Dutch; the empty state). Amsterdam: Nieuwezijds
Graham, Stephen and Simon Marvin, 2001. Splintering Urbanism; networked infrastructures, technological mobilities and the urban condition. London: Routledge.
Groot, Richard and John McLaughlin, 2002.Geospatial data infrastructure; concepts, cases and good practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hardin G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science,162:1243-48.
Hofstede, G., 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values. Beverly Hills CA.: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. H., 1997. Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Law, John, 1992. Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Network: Ordering, Strategy and Heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5, 179-393.
Law, John, 2000. Networks, Relations, Cyborgs: on the Social Study of Technology (draft, http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/soc042jl.html).
Law, John and and Annemarie Mol, 2002. And if the Global Were Small and Non-coherent?. Centre for Science Studies at the Department of Sociology, Lancaster University at http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology096jl.html (version: nokia4; 28 January, 2002).
Lesser, E.L. and J. Storck, 2001. Communities of practice and organizational performance. IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 40, No. 4, 2001.
March, J. and J. Olsen, 1989. Rediscovering institutions; the organizational basis of politics. New York: The Free Press.
Martin, E. W. 2000. Actor-Networks and Implementation: Examples From Conservation GIS in Ecuador. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 15(8): 715-738.
Merton, R.K., 1976. The sociology of social problems. in: Merton, R. K. and Nisbet, R. A. (eds), Contemporary social problems (4th ed). New York: Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich.
Morgan, Gareth, 1997. Images of organization. Thousands Oaks, Ca.: Sage Publications.
North, D., 1990, Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, Elinor, 1990. Governing the commons; the evolution of institutions for collective action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, Elinor, 1999. Coping with Tragedies of the Commons. Annual Review of Political Science, 2:493- 535.
Ostrom, Elinor, 2000. The Danger of Self-evident Truths. PS: Political Science & Politics, 33(1) (March): 33-44.
Pickels, J. (ed), 1995. Ground truth; the social implication of geographic information systems. New York: The Guilford Press.
Robertson, Ian, 1982. New York: Sociology.
Schein, E. H., 1985. Organizational Culture and Leadership: a Dynamic View. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sheppard, E., 1995. GIS and society: Towards a research agenda. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, Vol. 22, pp. 5-16.
Smith, M. K., 2003. Communities of practice. The encyclopedia of informal education, www.infed.org/biblio/communities_of_pratice.htm. (Last updated: 24 January, 2004);
Star, Susan L. and James R. Griesemer, 1989. Institutional ecology, 'translations' and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science 19: 387-420.
Thompson, M., R. Ellis, and A. Wildavsky, 1990. Cultural Theory, Boulder: Westview Press.
Uphoff, N., 1986. Local institutional development; an analytical sourcebook with cases. West Hartford, Conn.: Kumarian Press.
Wenger, E., 1998. Communities of Practice; Learing as a Social System (Published in the “Systems Thinker”, June 1998). http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/lss.shtml. (Accessed February 25, 2004.)
World Bank, 2002. Building Institutions for markets, (The World Development Report 2002). New York: Oxford university Press.
Zijderveld, Anton C., 2000. The Institutional Imperative; the interface of institutions and networks. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.