Neogeography and The Democratization of GIS A Metasynthesis of Qualitative Research PDF

Information, Communication & Society
ISSN: 1369-118X (Print) 1468-4462 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rics20
Neogeography and the democratization of GIS: a

metasynthesis of qualitative research
Denise Byrne & Alison Jane Pickard
To cite this article: Denise Byrne & Alison Jane Pickard (2016) Neogeography and the
democratization of GIS: a metasynthesis of qualitative research, Information, Communication &
Society, 19:11, 1505-1522, DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2015.1125936
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1125936
Published online: 04 Jan 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 541
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 8 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rics20
INFORMATION, COMMUNICATION & SOCIETY, 2016
VOL. 19, NO. 11, 1505–1522
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1125936
Neogeography and the democratization of GIS: a

metasynthesis of qualitative research
Denise Byrne and Alison Jane Pickard
Department of Mathematics and Information Sciences, Faculty of Engineering and Environment, Northumbria
University, Newcastle, UK
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Neogeography is the name given to the phenomenon of the vastly Received 6 April 2015
expanded Geographic Information Systems (GIS) user base. It Accepted 23 November 2015
consists of a collection of practices, tools and users generally
KEYWORDS
found outside of traditional, authoritative GIS. GIS are computer Neogeography; geoweb;
applications that allow users to contribute geotagged data and to geographic information
access and utilize geospatial data sets in combination with science; volunteered
attribute information for a variety of purposes. This paper geographic information;
investigates questions of whether neogeography furthers the metasynthesis
democratization of GIS and if increased access translates to
empowerment or, conversely, to further marginalization. The
research is interpretative and involves a literature review of the
topic and a metasynthesis of recent qualitative research.
Metasynthesis involves critical evaluation of data to identify an
appropriate research sample and synthesis of findings by a
compare-and-contrast exercise followed by reciprocal translation
of each study into the other studies to reveal overarching
metaphors. This is followed by conclusions and recommendations.
The findings show that, depending on circumstances,
neogeography can result in the democratization of GIS and
geospatial data but may also constitute new methods of exclusion
depending on technological and societal barriers. Neogeography
can also result in empowerment, but this is difficult to define and
is often highly contingent on local context.
Introduction
Neogeography has resulted in multidisciplinary opportunities for research incorporating
social sciences, human geography and information science. There are now many access
points for non-experts and non-traditional users via Web 2.0 and social media websites.
Specifically, the research method chosen – metasynthesis – aids in building skills of inter-
disciplinarity (Paterson et al., 2009) which is appropriate for linking neogeography, GIS
and Librarianship. Indeed, Barnes and Sheppard (2010) advocate a continuance of
‘engaged pluralism’ through interdisciplinarity in GIS to promote new forms of knowl-
edge. An early example of this cooperative approach is the Alexandria Digital Library
project (Goodchild, 2004) which integrated geospatial data and imagery into a digital
library thus increasing access potential to these resources significantly.
CONTACT Dr Alison Jane Pickard alison.pickard@northumbria.ac.uk

© 2015 Taylor & Francis
1506 D. BYRNE AND A. J. PICKARD
GIS research has evolved to become increasingly multidisciplinary and the resulting
social and ethical issues that have emerged constitute a field of study for those interested
in posing and investigating questions involving this technology and its consequences for
society (Schuurman, 2004). Research has been conducted into empowerment and margin-
alization issues, for example, Corbett and Keller (2005a, 2005b) have proposed empower-
ment frameworks for participatory GIS projects and studies have been conducted based on
community or indigenous peoples’ projects (Young & Gilmore, 2013) to investigate
empowerment. However, this concept, in particular crystallizing how empowerment
can result from neogeography, is difficult to define.
Research questions
This research is relevant because questions of empowerment and marginalization continue
to be raised as reductions in inequalities in all areas of life such as ecological resources,
health, education and access to information and technology (United Nations, 2012) are
sought. GIS has a role to play in many of these areas (Schuurman, 2004). This paper
aims to address the following research questions:
(1) How does neogeography further the democratization of GIS and geospatial data?
(2) Does increased access translate to empowerment or further marginalization?
Although literature reviews were sourced on this topic, no metasynthesis was identified.
The findings illuminate current theory on this subject and may contribute to framing
future research.
Literature review
Neogeography
Use of the term neogeography became widespread after Turner’s (2006) ‘Introduction to
neogeography’ but is not favoured by all researchers. Another term is Geoweb (Haklay,
Singleton, & Parker, 2008). Other options include crowdsourced cartography (Dodge &
Kitchin, 2013) or volunteered geographic information (VGI). This brief description of
the debate surrounding merely what to call the phenomenon illustrates the complexity
of the subject.
Neogeography has been described as the blurring of traditional distinctions between
experts and non-experts due to the lowering of barriers such as cost and access. This
has resulted in opportunities for non-academic users to create and leverage geospatial
data according to a range of purposes. This new paradigm followed the launch of
Google Earth in 2005 (Butler, 2006) following Google’s acquisition of Keyhole Earth
Viewer and is challenging traditional GIS roles and definitions (Elwood, Goodchild, &
Sui, 2012). It encapsulates a trend towards a patchwork paradigm where multiple roles
are filled by users, experts and non-experts. Another interesting feature is the opportunity
to reframe a feminist GIS (Kwan, 2003, 2011; McLafferty, 2002).
Web 2.0 provides increased access to collaboration and interaction opportunities and, con-
sequently, a vastly expanded user base through the internet. Web-based GIS is a complex
system for ‘capturing, storing, integrating, manipulating, analyzing and displaying data
INFORMATION, COMMUNICATION & SOCIETY 1507
related to locations without the need of having proprietary GIS software’ (Painho, Peixoto,
Cabral, & Sena, 2001, p. 1). With the advent of participatory tools such as social media
and the wikification of geospatial data described by Sui (2008) as the ‘ability to geotag
almost any information available on the web’, GIS now has a potentially unlimited user base.
These users have been called ‘produsers’ – a concatenation of the terms ‘producer’ and
‘user’ – to indicate the reciprocal relationship of both producing and using GIS and geospa-
tial data (Budhathoki, Bruce, & Nedovic-Budic, 2008; Coleman, Georgiadou, & Labonte,
2009) in large-scale collaborative initiatives such as OpenStreetMap (Dodge & Kitchin,
2013). Advantages include availability of low-cost, very large, accessible amounts of data.
According to Young and Gilmore (2013), neogeography can include affective and emotive
benefits for participants. These include the conferring of authoritative status to non-
expert-collected data which may be judged more legitimate by officials or government repre-
sentatives. This can be a significant benefit in gaining political leverage as is the embedding of
non-traditional indigenous knowledge in GIS, thus preserving these ephemeral types of data.
Negatives may include unreliable data quality (Scassa, 2013). Less obvious, but equally
important, may be contributors’ intentionality. This may include self-promotion or altru-
ism (Goodchild, 2007) or self-interest, for example, producing local neighbourhood maps
of property prices or crime statistics. Other motivations may include the desire to express
one’s technical prowess in creating mash-ups or hacking activities (Hudson-Smith, Batty,
Crooks, & Milton, 2008). A sense of empowerment may also be a motivating factor
(Tulloch, 2008). This expanded user base is related to the phenomenon of self-publishing.
For example, geotagging personal stories or memories for sharing on social media sites
(e.g., Flickr, YouTube, Twitter, etc.). Sui and Goodchild (2003) provide a thorough exam-
ination of this aspect through a tetradic analysis of GIS and society and an examination of
how this shift to media can promote more critical and democratic GIS practice.
The potential for geosurveillance and even geoslavery also exists and is identified as a
real threat by Dobson and Fisher (2003) as a direct result of the diminishing cost barriers
of GPS trackers and GIS software. Sui (2008) also warns of the unseemly commercializa-
tion and militarization of geotagging all of human activity and suggests that serious con-
siderations be given to the significant trade-off between potential benefits and negative
ramifications. However, the possibility of complete data reliability around geographic
information is questionable as there are many manifestations and interpretations to be
considered. As Couclelis (2003) maintains, geographic information has inherent imperfec-
tions. Reliability may improve when web-based peer review reaches critical mass numbers
for editing and correction (Sui, 2008).
Sieber (2006) makes the critical GIS argument that participation rates vary with bias
towards high-income locales leaving the status quo of established power relations unchal-
lenged and that socio-economic influences dictate participation more so than increased
access. Access is vital for participation but does not guarantee participation or equity.
However, it is the precursor and is therefore necessary for breaking down barriers
(Elwood, 2006). The introduction and use of technology in community empowerment
initiatives can give the illusion of control and constitute a kind of tokenism (Sieber,
2006). It is this aspect that Haklay (2013) terms ‘the delusion of democracy’. This contra-
dictory characteristic of simultaneous empowerment and disempowerment is a concern in
much of the literature with Stephens (2013, p. 982) concluding the ‘egalitarian potential
for the Geoweb … has not been realized’. Though web 2.0 opportunities are ostensibly
available to all individuals and society, on deeper reflection, access is actually more
complex. For example, Haklay (2013) advises caution against the assumption of equating
higher numbers of participation with increased participation. It may be that smaller
numbers of people are participating in larger volumes, thus maintaining a ‘hierarchy of
power’ Haklay (2013).
Empowerment potential
Levels of confidence in the power of neogeography to empower vary. Nawaz (2013) argues
that empowerment cannot be achieved without addressing political and power factors,
such as gender relations and local contexts. Pfeffer, Baud, Denis, Scott, and Syden-
stricker-neto (2013) posit that neogeography has the potential to open up new opportu-
nities but that it suffers from uneven participation and access. Where empowerment
has been built into neogeography aims, mobilization of community or marginalized
groups can confer empowerment aspects such as respect and legitimacy of non-scientific
data for indigenous groups (Young & Gilmore, 2013). This has also been observed in
Corbett and Keller’s (2005a) participatory GIS projects in Indonesia. Empowerment is
notoriously difficult to define and measure and may be highly contingent on local
social and political structures (Parker, 2006). Corbett and Keller’s (2005b) design of an
analytical framework provides one mechanism to assess this aspect. Empowerment oppor-
tunities include inclusion and representation (Parker, 2006; Young & Gilmore, 2013) and
grassroots activism and social justice (Elwood, 2006; Schuurman, 2004). Furthermore,
Haklay (2013) maintains that for technologies to be truly empowering, political influence
and contribution to decision-making should be the end result. However, in situations
where there are marginalized sub-sections within groups, power discrepancies may actu-
ally be strengthened, for example, where youths or women are traditionally marginalized.
Therefore, it appears that empowerment may be highly contingent on context (Corbett &
Keller, 2005a; Hoyt, Khosla, & Canepa, 2005).
Neogeography examples
There are many types of neogeography examples such as the Audubon Society Christmas
Bird count (http://birds.audubon.org/christmas-bird-count) and the sudden oak death-
monitoring site (http://www.oakmapper.org). Contributors submit and update data thus
constituting a vast and potentially free labour source to track bird sightings and disease
incidence. This can result in immediacy of data as seen in the use of OpenStreetMap
(http://www.openstreetmap.org) in the Haiti earthquake which provided vital timely
information to emergency workers where no official information was available. Open-
StreetMap is also used by contributors to tag features of general and personal interest.
The results of this tagging are totally dependent on users’ priorities. This may lead to par-
ticipation divides on gender lines, as a large majority of editors (on OpenStreetMap) are
male (Stephens, 2013). This inequality of participation may result in underrepresentation
of certain demographics’ spatial interests, in that users contribute features according to
their own priorities which may lead to a homogenization of data due to
overrepresentation.
It is clear from the literature that several issues require urgent attention to incorporate
wider societal goals. Amongst these are: the dichotomy of access barriers being lowered yet
resulting in increased marginalization; the question of empowerment through partici-
pation; and the possible negative consequences for society and individuals such as data
quality, privacy infringement and homogenization of the Geoweb.
Metasynthesis methodology
A qualitative research design based on Pickard’s model (2007) modified for the selected
research method was employed. An exploratory research design was selected as the
most suitable option for this subject matter which continues to evolve with emerging
niche and sub-fields being added to the body of work on an incremental basis (Schuur-
man, 2004).
A qualitative metasynthesis modelled on Noblit and Hare’s Meta-ethnography com-
bined with guidelines in Jensen and Allen (1996) and Walsh and Downe (2005) was
chosen. Metasynthesis technique can be unclear with different approaches for different
purposes. In this case, RTA (reciprocal translation analysis) was selected in order to
‘build comparative understanding rather than to aggregate data’ (Barnett-Page &
Thomas, 2009). It aims to build theory from analysis of published qualitative research
through hermeneutic analysis of themes, concepts and metaphors which reveal agree-
ments and dissonance. Connections were developed inductively from the data (Holden
& Lynch, 2004) which aided in explicating the tensions observed in contradictory accounts
(Lee, 2010). Metasynthesis situates existing research in a broader interpretive context thus
conferring increased impact (Sandelowski, Docherty, & Emden, 1997) by considering
findings from studies executed from different standpoints (Urquhart, 2010). Ten studies
that were not included in the literature review were analysed in this metasynthesis.
Metasynthesis technique
Noblitt and Hare’s 1988 (cited in Britten et al., 2002) technique was used for this research.
The stages are illustrated below with a brief description (Figure 1).
(1) Getting started

The first stage relates to choice of topic and formulation of research questions.
(2) Deciding what is relevant to the initial interest
The second stage involves designing aims and objectives to focus data collection on
Figure 1. Seven steps of Noblitt and Hare’s meta-ethnography.

the relevant research population and formulating criteria for sample selection that
would address the research questions. Results of this stage can be seen in Table 1.
(3) Reading the studies
The third stage involves in-depth repeated reading and analysis of the studies.
(4) Determining how the studies are related.
The fourth stage entails a ‘compare-and-contrast exercise’ to identify themes and con-
cepts which are then tabulated illustrating relationships of meaning. This stage can be
seen in Table 2.
(5) Translating the studies into each other
This process is achieved via RTA where the terms identified in stage 4 are grouped
together to reveal overarching concepts or metaphors. The studies are then juxtaposed
using the revealed metaphors as illustrated in Table 3.
(6) Sythesizing translations
This stage is executed by bringing together the constituents of the above steps to form
a cohesive overview whilst preserving original meanings.
(7) Expressing the synthesis
This stage involves formulating the findings and conclusion.
Issues with metasynthesis research

Metasynthesis has been used extensively in health research but less so in information
science. Possible issues may include a narrowing the research focus from what was orig-
inally planned (Walsh & Downe, 2005) for practical reasons of establishing topical simi-
larity and comparability in the studies (Sandelowski et al., 1997). Other issues relate to
appropriate sample size and comparability of studies.
As metasynthesis is interpretive in nature, author subjectivity can be an issue. This risk
is recognized by the authors and concerted efforts to avoid unintentional bias were made
Table 1. Final selection of studies for metasynthesis.

No. Study Published in Located by
1 Batty, Hudson-Smith, Milton, and Crooks (2010) ‘Map mashups, Annals of GIS Citation search
Web 2.0 and the GIS revolution’
2 Blaschke et al. (2012) ‘Virtual globes: Serving science and Information Journal Database/web
society’ search
3 Cinnamon and Schuurman (2013) ‘Confronting the data-divide Progress in Human Geography Citation search
in a time of spatial turns and volunteered geographic
information’
4 Connors, Lei, and Kelly (2012) ‘Citizen science in the age of Annals of the Association of Citation search
neogeography: utilising volunteered geographic information for American Geographers
environmental monitoring’
5 Elwood (2009) ‘Geographic information science: emerging Progress in Human Geography Citation search
research on the societal implications of the geospatial web’
6 Goodchild (2009) ‘Neogeography and the nature of geographic Journal of Location-Based Citation search
expertise’ Services
7 Graham (2009) ‘Neogeography and the palimpsests of place: Tijdschrift voor economische Citation search
Web 2.0 and the construction of a virtual earth’ en sociale geografie
8 Leszczynski (2014) ‘On the neo in neogeography’ Annals of the Association of Database/web
American Geographers search
9 Rana and Joliveau (2009) ‘Neogeography an extension of Journal of Location-Based Database/web
mainstream geography for everyone made by everyone’ Services search
10 Warf and Sui (2010) ‘From GIS to neogeography: ontological Annals of GIS Citation search
implications and theories of truth’
Table 2. Compare and contrast.

No. Themes and concepts
1 Non-experts Terminology Beyond visualization Maps as media
Barriers Potential and risks Power of the crowd
Stretching boundaries
2 Non-experts Power of the visual Democratization of GIS Empowerment
Access GIS as media Marginalization Creativity
Power of maps Populism Commercialism
3 Access Rise of amateur Democratization of GIS Neogeography as
Digital divide Cost/benefit to society Opportunity and threats communication
Limitations Asymmetry of power
Data quality
4 Access and representation Indigenous experience Benefits and challenges Citizen involvement
Citizen scientists Inaccuracy Intentionality Leveraging power
Democratization
5 Types of knowledge Access inequalities Social and political shifts Ubiquitous cartography
Experts and non-experts Information control Power relations Privacy and surveillance
Winners & losers
6 Participants and practices Volunteerism Community mapping Crowdsourcing
Nature of expertise Skill barriers Quality control Management and
Levels of inaccuracy Terminology coordination
7 History and geography of Benefits of neogeography Presence and absence Online and offline worlds
virtual places Uneven distribution Inclusion and exclusion Meanings of place
Change in communication Movement of power Dominant power Cultural, political,
Narratives structures economic effects
8 Examination of ‘neo’ Terminology Depoliticising spatial Erosion of privacy
Societal implications Digital divide media Power struggles
Non-experts Presumed neutrality of GIS Normalisation of Technological defeatism
technology
9 Opportunities and threats Hurdles to potential Neogeography as Appeal to the individual
Terminology Anarchic movement communication Societal implications
Privacy concerns Over-democratization
10 Terminology Downgrading of expert Democratization of GIS Power differentials

Types of knowledge knowledge Theories of truth Wisdom of the crowd
Lack of precision GIS perspectives Human geography and Access
Table 3. Reciprocal translation.

Study # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Metaphor 1 The realm of designation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Subtheme Terminology ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Metaphor 2 People and place: roles and representation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Subthemes Democratization of GIS ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Empowerment and access ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Marginalization and barriers ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Nature of expertise ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Alternative types of knowledge ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Metaphor 3 Momentum and direction ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Subthemes Uncertainty ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Methodological choices ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Power of the crowd ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
GIS as media ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Metaphor 4 Winners and losers ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Subthemes Effects on the individual (privacy) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Power relations ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Myth making and discourse ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Truth versions ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
by maintaining an agnostic philosophical stance (Connell & Nord, 1996). Safeguards in

the form of step-by-step descriptions of data analysis accompanied by illustrative tables
form part of the overall paper to situate the findings in transparency and openness.
Data collection
A search strategy was designed involving a two-pronged approach with the aim of careful
selection of a small number of papers that were not included in the literature review
above. This entailed citation searching as a source of valuable data (Jasco, 2004; Noy,
2008) combined with web and database searching. This strategy involved defining key
search terms which can be seen in Figure 2 combined with evaluation of results for relevance
to the research questions. A total of 100 results were returned from citation searching and 40
were returned from web and database searches. These even-sounding symmetrical figures
were entirely coincidental. The databases used were Northumbria University Library,
Web of Science/Knowledge, EBSCO and Go-Geo. The web search utilized Google,
Google Scholar and Citeulike. The citation search utilized the papers sourced for the litera-
ture review. All results were logged and each item was preliminarily reviewed for qualitative
research focus, that is, studies focussing on social and ethical issues and currency.
Sample
The search strategy described above was used to meet the aim of identifying 10 suitable
studies as recommended by Bondas and Hall (2007) as a realistic sample size. An initial
shortlist was formed which was then further screened for research question relevance
Figure 2. Flow chart of search strategy, results and studies selection.

and reduced to 10 of which 7 were from citation searching and three from web and data-
base searching. This process is illustrated in the flow chart.
Details of the 10 studies selected for inclusion can be seen in Table 1.
Data analysis
In metasynthesis, original meaning is preserved using idiomatic translations. Interpret-
ations in the original studies are treated as data and are translated across the studies to
produce a synthesis (Britten et al., 2002). Practically, this is achieved by in-depth re-
reading of the individual texts followed by juxtaposition of each paper with the others.
This involved two aspects: hermeneutic – which captured concepts; and dialectic – relating
the studies to each other.
Hermeneutic aspect
A compare-and-contrast exercise to identify and understand key themes and concepts as
outlined by Walsh and Downe (2005) and Jensen and Allen (1996) was conducted. The
extracted data were refined using open coding to identify components for use as ‘basic
units of analysis’ (Pickard, 2007, p. 271). Identified themes and concepts were then
coded, or catalogued separately under overarching, or first-order metaphors. The results
of this analysis can be seen in the ‘compare-and-contrast’ Table 2.
Dialectic aspect
Key themes and concepts were then juxtaposed and tabulated to reveal connections and
dissonance by translation into each other to reveal overarching metaphors. This was
achieved by a ‘qualitative comparative analysis’ (Sandelowski et al., 1997, p. 367). The
results can be seen in the reciprocal translation (Table 3).
Findings
Compare and contrast
These studies were analysed by repeated re-reading to identify and refine themes and con-
cepts relevant to the research questions. The results of this analysis were tabulated to illus-
trate crossover, similarity and dissonance as can been seen in Table 2.
For ease of reference, the table is organized alphabetically by study number, that is, no.1
refers to Batty et al. (2010).
Reciprocal translation to reveal overarching metaphors

This step involved a reciprocal translation of the concepts identified in the compare-and-
contrast stage where each study was ‘translated’ into the other studies to reveal overarch-
ing metaphors. This was achieved by coding the above themes and concepts and grouping
them under overarching metaphors to illustrate connections and relationships between
the studies. The results of this stage can be seen in the table.
Four overarching metaphors were revealed in this exercise. They are:
(1) The realm of designation.

(2) People and place: roles and representation.
(3) Momentum and direction.
(4) Winners and losers.
Metaphor 1: the realm of designation

This metaphor deals with expressions of a digital earth as a separate but reflexive entity of
the physical earth. These expressions help to make sense of the new applications of neo-
geography and related web 2.0 tools that contribute to creating this digital earth. Seven
studies used novel expressions which vary from technical in nature: ‘Virtual Globes’
and ‘Digital Earth’ (Blaschke et al., 2012); ‘Geoweb’ (Elwood, 2009); ‘Geospatial web’ (Cin-
namon & Schuurman, 2013); ‘Network world’ (Rana & Joliveau, 2009) to the more expres-
sive: ‘Palimpsests of place’, ‘Genius loci’ (Graham, 2009); and ‘Mirror worlds’ (Warf & Sui,
2010). Batty et al. (2010) state that neogeography can lead ‘beyond visualisation’. Other
expressions include reference to ‘virtual black holes’ and ‘invisible places’ (Cinnamon &
Schuurman, 2013) – those places that exist on the earth but which are not digitally
recorded, for example, parts of sub-Saharan Africa.
This metaphor is indicative of the expressive nature of neogeography.
The sub theme of use of the use of the term ‘neogeography’ itself also occurs in seven of
the studies. ‘Newness’ or the ‘neo’ of neogeography as distinct from traditional or ‘paleo-
geography’ is discussed by Rana and Joliveau (2009). Batty et al. (2010) do not raise objec-
tions to the term but do discuss ‘new directions’. On the other hand, Goodchild (2009) and
Leszczynski (2014) contribute strongly to the debate surrounding the appropriateness of
the term. Blaschke et al. (2012) refer to ‘newness’ or novel ways to utilize geographic data.
Elwood (2009) refers to the ‘negotiations over what to call the collection of technologies,
methods and social practices’ of neogeography. Interpretation of terms is further discussed
by Warf and Sui (2010). As with all neologisms, terms such as neogeography and web 2.0
will naturally be updated or replaced and Batty et al. (2010) already predict the advent of
‘web 3.0’.
As noted in the literature review, this is a contentious area of debate.
Metaphor 2: people and place: roles and representation

This metaphor refers to the emerging different roles of people and how they represent
themselves through neogeography. It encompasses the increase in non-expert users, the
democratization of GIS, empowerment and marginalization potential. Connors et al.
(2012) employ the term ‘citizen science’ and Elwood (2009) discusses how non-experts
are using GIS technology to ‘fill[ing] the gaps’. Goodchild (2009) concentrates on this
theme in his analysis of new users and posits that the nature of geographic expertise is mis-
understood in neogeography. Graham (2009) argues that neogeography constitutes a
‘movement of power’ to non-experts. Rana and Joliveau (2009) investigate if neogeogra-
phy is ‘an extension of mainstream geography for everyone by everyone’. Warf and Sui
(2010) also warn of a ‘glorification of open technology’ and a possible downgrading of

expert knowledge.
Blaschke et al. (2012) comment on increased access but concede that it may be limited
to already computer literate participants. Leszczynski (2014) questions the presumed
democratic nature of neogeography via web 2.0 tools while Rana and Joliveau (2009)
term neogeography an ‘anarchic and over democratised movement’. Warf and Sui
(2010) comment on the ‘unprecedented democratisation from expert centric to user
centric’ that is central to neogeography. Graham (2009) asserts that a kind of ‘democracy
of geography’ is inherent in neogeography. Rana and Joliveau (2009) posit that contri-
bution may sometimes be limited to reporting or observation roles rather than
decision-making or increased political power whilst Goodchild (2009) contends that
mapping as a community exercise can contribute to empowerment locally.
Consensus on what empowerment means and how it can be measured or assessed was
not revealed.
The themes of marginalization and barriers occur in all of the studies. Graham (2009)
comments on the ‘uneven distribution’ of potential participants, thus limiting democrati-
zation potential and Cinnamon and Schuurman (2013) and Warf and Sui (2010) describe
the existence of a global digital divide. Connors et al. (2012) and Elwood (2009) agree that
inequalities of access continue to exist. Indeed, Goodchild (2009) also alludes to the risk of
marginalization due to the skills barrier that is required for higher levels of participation
and analysis. Blaschke et al. (2012) agree that neogeography may include a risk of
increased marginalization, while Batty et al. (2010) confirm the existence of ‘technical bar-
riers’. Leszczynski (2014) goes further to say that neogeography practices often do not con-
sider ‘uneven knowledge production or digital divides’. Rana and Joliveau (2009) agree
that there are ‘hurdles to participation’.
Consensus is identified here that marginalization and barriers exist in neogeography.
One of the most interesting aspects of neogeography is the possibility of preserving
alternative types of knowledge, particularly indigenous knowledge and non-scientific data.
Four of the studies develop this subtheme. Elwood (2009) analyses formal and informal
types of knowledge and Warf and Sui (2010) discuss the representation and celebration of
ethnographic and indigenous knowledge. Blaschke et al. (2012) aver that ‘creativity and
imagination’ are encouraged by average internet users using tools such as map mash-ups
and digital world conceptualizing. Connors et al. (2012) value the use of ‘local knowledge’.
Metaphor 3: momentum and direction

Eight of the studies refer to how neogeography has a certain energy and momentum
peculiar to disciplinary shifts. Batty et al. (2010) categorize neogeography as a ‘renaissance
of geographic information’; Blaschke et al. (2012) term neogeography a ‘revolution’ in the
way geography is currently seen by the wider public, stating that we are now in a ‘geoin-
formation age and society’. Cinnamon and Schuurman (2013) refer to the ‘spatial turn’
and designate neogeography as a ‘techno-social’ revolution. Connors et al. (2012) desig-
nate neogeography a ‘patchwork paradigm’. Elwood (2009) terms the phenomenon a
‘reconfiguration of a previously bounded discipline’ with great ‘transformative potential’.
Graham (2009) discusses the parallel paradigm shift of web 2.0 which facilitates neogeo-
graphy and the resulting ‘planetary consciousness’ that has arisen. Warf and Sui (2010) use
the term ‘game changing shift’ where the ‘local becomes global’. Alternatively, Leszczynski
(2014) regards neogeography as a rebranding of GIS involving a ‘technophilic fetishisa-
tion’ of GIS rather than a paradigm shift.
Seven of the studies discuss this theme of uncertainty of data standards. Contributions
from non-experts can lead to unreliability of data, interoperability difficulties and other
technological issues (Batty et al., 2010; Blaschke et al., 2012; Cinnamon & Schuurman,
2013; Connors et al., 2012; Elwood, 2009; Goodchild, 2009), although Warf and Sui
(2010) comment that accuracy may be a ‘matter of preference’ depending on context.
Goodchild (2009) notes that initiatives such as the introduction of meta-data to verify
sources and act as an indicator of data quality may be of little interest to non-expert
users. Methodological choices feature in five of the studies as being significant to the
success of neogeography projects (Batty et al., 2010; Goodchild, 2009; Leszczynski,
2014; Warf & Sui, 2010). Connors et al. (2012) also recommend a hybrid approach to
avail of new opportunities.
Agreement is seen that methodological choices can influence outcomes such as access
and representation but further research regarding technical standards is needed.
Neogeography has been depicted as a technology for the masses. With regard to the
word ‘masses’, the ‘power of the crowd’ is significant. Many of the studies (Batty et al.,
2010; Connors et al., 2012) discuss this issue with a focus on the almost limitless potential
of a global audience of contributors which Blaschke et al. (2012) term the ‘global audience’.
Goodchild (2009) posits that the power of the crowd could act as a quality control mech-
anism. Web 2.0 tools are the main avenue of access for neogeography and Graham (2009)
and Rana and Joliveau (2009) focus on how web 2.0 facilitates neogeography via
‘geocomputation’.
The sub-theme of GIS as media was revealed in eight of the studies. Other higher order
applications include using neogeography as a platform for indigenous or marginalized
groups to record representations of indigenous knowledge or previously unheard voices
(Cinnamon & Schuurman, 2013), thus offering a kind of representation that may result
in a conferring of legitimacy. Batty et al. (2010) refer to the use of ‘maps as media’,
while Blaschke et al. overtly (2012) discuss ‘GIS as media’. Warf and Sui (2010)
propose that ‘neogeography has emerged as a descriptive and analytical tool for large
numbers of people outside of academia’. Leszczynski (2014) explores the ‘depoliticizing
of spatial media’ as a means to disavow responsibility and rejection of the need to
engage in debate from techno-capitalist actors. Graham (2009) argues that neogeography
involves a communications change from the old model of ‘one-to-many’ to ‘many-to-
many’. This is echoed by Rana and Joliveau (2009) who agree that neogeography is a
method of communication and Goodchild (2009) breaks it down to its media components:
‘audience, information, presenter and subject’.
Agreement is seen that GIS is frequently reframed by users as media.
Metaphor 4: winners and losers

All the studies referenced the societal implications of neogeography. Batty et al. (2010)
investigate the potential and risks that neogeography entails, while Blaschke et al.
(2012) examine whether these developments actually serve science and society. Cinnamon
and Schuurman (2013) recommend that neogeography’s ‘limitations demand attention’
and warn of the ‘cost to society’, while Connors et al. (2012) stress the distinction between
information versus ‘noise’ that neogeography may involve. Elwood (2009) questions ‘to
whose advantage and to whose disadvantage’ is neogeography. Rana and Joliveau
(2009) also explore the possible societal impacts, while Warf and Sui (2010) note how neo-
geography influences our ‘fractalized post-modern life’ where the ‘local becomes global’.
Leszczynski (2014) describes negative aspects of neogeography and society, whereas
Graham (2009) deliberates on the ‘reflexive link between online and off-line worlds’.
Goodchild (2009) comments on the ubiquity of neogeography but also questions
whether neogeography’s ‘raw data’ reporting and the failure to understand the true
nature of academic geography are truly beneficial for society.
Consensus is seen in this metaphor that neogeography has social, legal and ethical con-
sequences that require further research.
Also of relevance in this category were potential risks to the individual with regard to
privacy and control of data about self with six studies elaborating on this risk. Batty et al.
(2010) and Connors et al. (2012) discuss the possibility of privacy infringement, geosur-
veillance and unwanted location-based marketing. Elwood (2009) continues this theme,
outlining how neogeography could constitute an alteration of privacy and surveillance
mechanisms. Leszczynski (2014) elaborates on the consequent ‘erosion of privacy’ with
Rana and Joliveau (2009) and Cinnamon and Schuurman (2013) also expressing
privacy concerns.
Consensus is revealed on this issue where it is discussed in that neogeography consti-
tutes a threat to privacy.
The category of power relations revealed differences in approach between many of the
studies and was discussed in 6 of the 10. For example, Leszczynski (2014) focuses on this
aspect and expounds on it in great depth. Power differentials and relations are noted by
Blaschke et al. (2012); Cinnamon and Schuurman (2013); Elwood (2009); and Graham
(2009). Warf and Sui (2010) claim that VGI, a near synonym of neogeography, may
even enhance rather than reduce power differentials.
Leszczynski (2014) expounds on mythmaking and the discourse around the propa-
gation and normalisation of societal acceptance of technologies, particularly when
employed by power actors such as commercial and governmental organizations.
Another aspect addressed by Leszczynski is that of the assumed advantage of democratiz-
ing technologies which raises the fundamental question of the possibility of a link with a
new type of technological evangelism and technical colonialism. This is linked to a wider
discussion of the power of technology and the inherent power of maps (Blaschke et al.,
2012; Connors et al., 2012; Elwood, 2009). A connection can be seen by Connors et al.
(2012) warning of the ‘perceived democratization of web 2.0’ in society. This is echoed
by Graham (2009) who argues that the ‘virtual ear remains highly shaped by dominant
power structures and societal narratives’. Warf and Sui (2010) also comment on the
‘power of technology’ to shape society and its effect on participants’ perspectives. This
theme illustrates shades of vehemence with Leszczynski articulating most audibly reser-
vations around neogeography.
The concept of truth versions, a topic inherent in the history of cartography, was
explicitly examined in four studies. Leszczynski (2014), Warf and Sui (2010) and
Elwood (2009) judge theories of truth as being of fundamental importance in cartogra-
phy, GIS and neogeography. Warf and Sui (2010) call attention to the Cartesian/
Euclidian version of reality which influences positivist cartography. Similarly, Graham

(2009) also discusses truth theories such as purported ‘universal truths’ which often rep-
resent western, developed countries’ version of the truth. This theme has connections
with many of the previously discussed themes such as legitimacy of non-scientific
and indigenous knowledge, representation of marginalized groups and power relations.
It is through this fourth metaphor that dissonance is most revealed. However, rather
than refutational opposition, a difference of approach conveying shades of meaning and
counterbalance is revealed.
Addressing the research questions

How does neogeography further the democratization of GIS and geospatial
data?
The findings show that neogeography has the potential to democratize GIS and geospatial
data by opening up the field to an almost limitless pool of users due to the advent of par-
ticipatory web 2.0 tools. Users are now able to access GIS technologies via VGI projects,
environmental monitoring, commercial products or social media. However, if access and
participation are limited to observational activities, democratization may be overhyped.
Furthermore, the issue of access along technical literacy precludes many people from uti-
lizing these tools. Thus, a dichotomy exists between perceived democratization through
increased numbers of participants and initiatives, and of increased methods of exclusion.
In short, neogeography can result in the democratization of GIS and geospatial data
limited to a mostly already technically literate demographic.
Does increased access translate to empowerment or further marginalization?

The findings demonstrate the difficulty of addressing this question. Although the issue of
empowerment is of import, it is a difficult concept to define and measure. Many of the
authors agree that increased access via neogeography and web 2.0 can result in empower-
ment but can also result in disempowerment and marginalization. Indeed, neogeography
can constitute new methods of exclusion. That both situations can exist simultaneously
appears to be a paradox. Marginalized populations may have limited initial access to
the internet in general and, if they have the required access, could lack technical skills
necessary to avail of the technology. One positive aspect revealed by the findings is the
potential for a voice to be given to those previously unheard or unrecorded. This relates
to the theme of GIS as media and can be a powerful tool for the conferring of legitimacy
and recognition of indigenous knowledge and non-scientific expertise. Participation does
not necessarily lead directly to opportunities for empowerment. This is due to the types of
participation revealed in the findings which can be limited to observational data reporting
or social media use rather than an increase in political power such as the ability to influ-
ence policy or decision-making.
Therefore, increased access can result in empowerment for some population sections; it
may be limited to certain types of participation; and it might also result in further margin-
alization of certain demographics.
Conclusions and recommendations

The conclusions drawn are analogous to what was learnt in the literature review. The over-
arching recommendation drawn from the conclusions is that the debate must continue as
to the democratization and empowerment potential of neogeography if marginalized
groups are not to be further excluded. It is posited that the questions of democratization
and marginalization as a consequence of neogeography have not been fully addressed.
Therefore, it is recommended that more research be carried out on this subject. This
has actually become even more urgent as the spotlight on geographic international
borders continues to be highlighted, for example, by the current European migrant crisis.
Incorporating the concept of empowerment and the use of empowerment frameworks
into project goals may contribute to achieving this for participants. The phenomenon of
neogeography requires much further research regarding its potential democratizing and
empowering effects. The risks and threats to society and individuals merit urgent atten-
tion. It spans many disciplines and has appeal in many quarters. Notwithstanding its
current popularity, the term ‘neogeography’ itself is not favoured by all stakeholders
and its use could fade over time.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Denise Byrne completed her BSc (Hons) Librarianship with Northumbria University under the
supervision of Dr Alison Jane Pickard in 2014. She is currently studying for an MSc in Information
Management with Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen. Her research interests include Infor-
mation rights as Human rights including access issues, digital divide and privacy concerns.
[email: d.byrne@rgu.ac.uk].
Alison Jane Pickard is Director of CPD and Collaboration in the School, Faculty of Engineering
and Environment at Northumbria University in the UK. She is also Programme Leader for the
Professional Doctorate in Information Science (DInfoSci). She has worked in public and industrial
libraries, and currently teaches units relating to learner support, user needs analysis and research
methods. She is the author of Research Methods in Information – a core text on many LIS pro-
grammes internationally and a book that has recently been translated into Italian. Joint Editor of
Library and Information Research and a member of the Editorial Board of Performance Measure-
ment and Metrics, she regularly delivers CPD workshops to both public and health library staff
across the north-east of England. She is also a visiting scholar on the Erasmus Mundus ‘Digital
Libraries’ programme, lecturing in Florence and Parma. [email: Alison.pickard@northumbria.
ac.uk].
References
Barnes, T. J., & Sheppard, E. (2010). Nothing includes everything: Towards engaged pluralism in
Anglophone economic geography. Progress in Human Geography, 34, 193–214. doi:10.1177/
0309132509343728
Barnett-Page, E., & Thomas, J. (2009). Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: A critical
review. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University
of London. Retrieved from http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/690/
Batty, K., Hudson-Smith, A., Milton, R. & Crooks, A. (2010). Map mashups, Web 2.0 and the GIS
revolution. Annals of GIS, 16, 1–13. doi:10.1080/19475681003700831
Blaschke, T., Donert, K., Gossette, F., Kienberger, S. Marani, M., Qureshi, S. & Tiede, D. (2012).
Virtual globes: Serving science and society. Information, 3, 372–390. doi:10.3390/info3030372
Bondas, T. & Hall, O. C. (2007). Challenges in approaching metasynthesis research. Qualitative
Health Research, 17, 113–121. doi:10.1177/1049732306295879
Britten, N., Campbell, R., Pope, C., Donovan, J., Morgan, M., & Pill, R. (2002). Using meta ethno-
graphy to synthesise qualitative research: A worked example. Journal of Health Services Research
& Policy, 7, 209–215. doi:10.1258/135581902320432732
Budhathoki, N., Bruce, B., & Nedovic-Budic, Z. (2008). Reconceptualizing the role of the user of
spatial data infrastructure. GeoJournal, 72, 149–160. doi:10.1007/s10708-008-9189-x
Butler, D. (2006). Virtual Globes: The web-wide world. Nature, 439, 776–778. doi:10.1038/439776a
Cinnamon, J., & Schuurman, N. (2013). Confronting the data-divide in a time of spatial turns and
volunteered geographic information. Geojournal, 78, 657–674. doi:10.1007/s10708-012-9458-6
Coleman, D. J., Georgiadou, Y. & Labonte, J. (2009). Volunteered geographic information: The
nature and motivation of produsers. International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures
Research, 4, 332–358. doi:10.2902/1725-0463.2009.04.art16
Connell, A. F., & Nord, W. R. (1996). The bloodless coup: The infiltration of organizaton science by
uncertainty and values. The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 32, 407–427. doi:10.1177/
0021886396324005
Connors, J. P., Lei, S., & Kelly, M. (2012). Citizen Science in the age of neogeography: Utilizing vol-
unteered geographic information for environmental monitoring. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, 102, 1267–1289. doi:10.1080/00045608.2011.627058
Corbett, J. M., & Keller, C. P. (2005a). Empowerment and participatory geographic information and
multimedia systems: Observations from two communities in Indonesia. The Massachusetts
Institute of Technology Information Technologies and International Development, 2, 25–44.
Retrieved from http://itidjournal.org/itid/article/viewFile/197/67
Corbett, J. M. & Keller, C. P. (2005b). An analytical framework to examine empowerment associ-
ated with participatory geographic information systems (PGIS). Cartographica, 40, 91–102.
doi:10.3138/J590-6354-P38V-4269
Couclelis, H. (2003). The certainty of uncertainty: GIS and the limits of geographic knowledge.
Transactions in GIS, 7, 165–175. doi:10.1111/1467-9671.00138
Dobson, J. E. & Fisher, P. F. (2003). Geoslavery. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 22, 47–52.
Retrieved from https://msu.edu/~kg/874/geoslavery.pdf
Dodge, M. & Kitchin, R. (2013). Crowdsourced cartography: Mapping experience and knowledge.
Environment and Planning A, 45, 19–36. doi:10.1068/a44484
Elwood, S. (2006). Negotiating knowledge production: The everyday inclusions, exclusions, and
contradictions of participatory GIS research. The Professional Geographer, 58, 197–208. doi:10.
1111/j.1467-9272.2006.00526.x
Elwood, S. (2009). Geographic information science: Emerging research on the societal implications
of the geospatial web. Progress in Human Geography, 34, 349–357. doi:10.1177/
0309132509340711
Elwood, S., Goodchild, M. F. & Sui, D. (2012). Researching volunteered geographic information:
Spatial data, geographic research, and new social practice. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, 102, 571–590. doi:10.1080/00045608.2011.595657
Goodchild, M. F. (2004). The Alexandria digital library project. D-Lib Magazine, 10. doi:10.1045/
may2004-goodchild
Goodchild, M. F. (2007). Citizens as sensors: The world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal, 69,
211–221. doi:10.1007/s10708-007-9111-y
Goodchild, M. F. (2009). Neogeography and the nature of geographic expertise. Journal of Location
Based Services, 3, 82–96. doi:10.1080/17489720902950374
Graham, M. (2009). Neogeography and the palimpsests of place: Web 2.0 and the construction of a
virtual earth. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 101, 422–436. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9663.2009.00563.x
Haklay, M. (2013). Neogeography and the delusion of democratisation. Environment and Planning
A, 45, 55–69. doi:10.1068/a45184
Haklay, M., Singleton, A., & Parker, C. (2008). Web mapping 2.0: The neogeography of the Geoweb.
Geography Compass, 2, 2011–2039. doi:10.1111/j.1749-8198.2008.00167.x
Holden, M. T., & Lynch, P. (2004). Choosing the appropriate methodology: Understanding research
philosophy. Waterford: Waterford Institute of Technology. Retrieved from http://repository.wit.
ie/1466/1/Choosing_the_Appropriate_Methodology_Understanding_Research_Philosoph
(RIKON_Group).pdf
Hoyt, L., Khosla, R., & Canepa, C. (2005). Leaves, pebbles, and chalk: Building a Public
Participation GIS in New Delhi, India. Journal of Urban Technology, 12, 1–19. doi:10.1080/
10630730500116479
Hudson-Smith, A., Batty, M., Crooks, A., & Milton, R. (2008). Mapping for the masses: Accessing
Web 2.0 through crowdsourcing. Social Science Computer Review, 31(6). Retrieved from http://
eprints.ucl.ac.uk/15198/1/15198.pdf
Jasco, P. (2004). Citation searching. Online Information Review, 28, 454–460. doi:10.1108/
14684520410570580
Jensen, L. A., & Allen, M. N. (1996). Metasynthesis of qualitative findings. Qualitative Health
Research, 6, 553–560. Retrieved from http://qhr.sagepub.com/content/6/4/553.short doi:10.
1177/104973239600600407
Kwan, M. P. (2003). Feminist visualization: Re-envisioning GIS as a method in feminist geographic
research. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 92, 645–661. Retrieved from http://
meipokwan.org/Paper/Annals_2002.pdf
Kwan, M. P. (2011). Affecting geospatial technologies: Toward a feminist politics of emotion. In M.
Dodge, R. Kitchin, & C. Perkins (Eds.), The map reader: Theories of mapping practice and carto-
graphic representation. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/9780470979587.ch58
Lee, J. (2010). 10 year retrospect on stage models of e-Government. Government Information
Quarterly, 27, 220–230. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2009.12.009
Leszczynski, A. (2014). On the neo in neogeography. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 104, 60–79. doi:10.1080/00045608.2013.846159
McLafferty, S. (2002). Mapping women’s worlds: Knowledge power and the bounds of GIS. Gender,
Place and Culture, 9, 269–69. doi:10.1080/0966369022000003879
Nawaz, F. (2013). Power, empowerment and participatory development: Conceptual linkages. Open
Journal of Social Science Research, 1, 26–30. doi:10.12966/ojssr.05.03.2013
Noy, C. (2008). Sampling Knowledge: The hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative
research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11, 327–344. doi:10.1080/
13645570701401305
Painho, M., Peixoto, M., Cabral, P., & Sena, R. (2001). WebGIS as a teaching tool. Proceedings of the
ESRI UC, New University of Lisbon, Portugal, Institute for Statistics and Information
Management. Retrieved from http://labnt.isegi.unl.pt/links_CV/WebGIS_as_a_teaching_tool.pdf
Parker, B. (2006). Constructing community through maps? Power and praxis in community
mapping. The Professional Geographer, 58, 470–484. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9272.2006.00583.x
Paterson, B. L., Dubouloz, C. J., Chevrier, J., Ashe, B., King, J. & Moldoveanu, M. (2009).
Conducting qualitative metasynthesis research: Insights from a metasynthesis project.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8, 22–33. Retrieved from http://ejournals.library.
ualberta.ca/index.php/IJQM/article/view/5100
Pfeffer, K., Baud, I., Denis, E., Scott, D. & Sydenstricker-neto, J. (2013). Participatory spatial knowl-
edge management tools: Empowerment and upscaling or exclusion? Information,
Communication & Society, 16, 258–285. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2012.687393
Pickard, A. J. (2007). Research methods in information. London: Facet.
Rana, S. & Joliveau, T. (2009). Neogeography? An extension of mainstream geography for everyone
made by everyone? Journal of Location Based Services 3, 75–81. doi:10.1080/17489720903146824
Sandelowski, M., Docherty, S. & Emden, C. (1997). Qualitative metasynthesis: Issues and tech-
niques. Focus on Qualitative Methods, Research in Nursing & Health, 20, 365–371. Retrieved
from https://www.google.ie/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Qualitative+metasynthesis:+issues+and+techniques
Scassa, T. (2013). Legal issues with volunteered geographic information. The Canadian Geographer,
57, 1–10. doi:10.11111/j.1541-0064.2012.00444.x
Schuurman, N. (2004). GIS: A short introduction. Malden: Blackwell.
Sieber, R. (2006). Public participation geographic information systems: A literature review and fra-
mework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96, 491–507. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8306.2006.00702.x
Stephens, M. (2013). Gender and the Geoweb: Divisions in the production of user-generated carto-
graphic information. GeoJournal, 78, 981–996. doi:10.1007/s10708-013-9492-z
Sui, D., & Goodchild, M. (2003). A tetradic analysis of GIS and society using McLuhan’s law of the
media. Canadian Geographers, 47, 5–17. Retrieved from http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~good/
papers/385.pdf
Sui, D. Z. (2008). The wikification of GIS and its consequences: Or Angelina Jolie’s new tattoo and
the future of GIS. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 32, 1–5. doi:10.1016/j.
compenvurbsys.2007.12.001
Tulloch, D. (2008). Is VGI participation? From vernal pools to video games. Geojournal, 72, 161–
171. doi:10.1007/s10708-008-9185-1
Turner, A. J. (2006). Introduction to neogeography. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/
scholar_url?url=http://brainoff.com/iac2009/IntroductionToNeogeography.pdf&hl=en&sa=
X&scisig=AAGBfm1t39FkufgCOSaVQDt_J6SSBZbX1w&nossl=1&oi=scholarr
United Nations. (2012). Addressing inequalities: The heart of the post-2015 agenda and the future we
want for all UN System Task Team on the post 2015 UN development Agenda. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/10_inequalities_20July.pdf
Urquhart, C. (2010). Systematic reviewing, meta-analysis and meta-synthesis for evidence-based
library and information science. Information Research, 15. Retrieved from http://
InformationR.net/ir/15–3/colis7/colis708.html
Walsh, D., & Downe, S. (2005). Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: A literature review.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 50, 204–211. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03380.x
Warf, B., & Sui, D. (2010). From GIS to neogeography: Ontological implications and theories of
truth. Annals of GIS, 16, 197–209. doi:10.1080/19475683.2010.539985
Young, J. C. and Gilmore, M. P. (2013). The spatial politics of affect and emotion in participatory
GIS. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 103, 808–823. doi:10.1080/00045608.
2012.707596

Neogeography and The Democratization of GIS A Metasynthesis of Qualitative Research PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Neogeography and The Democratization of GIS A Metasynthesis of Qualitative Research PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Information, Communication & Society

ISSN: 1369-118X (Print) 1468-4462 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rics20

Neogeography and the democratization of GIS: a

Denise Byrne & Alison Jane Pickard

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1125936

Published online: 04 Jan 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 541

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 8 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Neogeography and the democratization of GIS: a

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

CONTACT Dr Alison Jane Pickard alison.pickard@northumbria.ac.uk

(1) Getting started

Figure 1. Seven steps of Noblitt and Hare’s meta-ethnography.

Issues with metasynthesis research

Table 1. Final selection of studies for metasynthesis.

Table 2. Compare and contrast.

10 Terminology Downgrading of expert Democratization of GIS Power differentials

Table 3. Reciprocal translation.

by maintaining an agnostic philosophical stance (Connell & Nord, 1996). Safeguards in

Figure 2. Flow chart of search strategy, results and studies selection.

Reciprocal translation to reveal overarching metaphors

Four overarching metaphors were revealed in this exercise. They are:

(1) The realm of designation.

Metaphor 1: the realm of designation

Metaphor 2: people and place: roles and representation

(2010) also warn of a ‘gloriﬁcation of open technology’ and a possible downgrading of

Metaphor 3: momentum and direction

Metaphor 4: winners and losers

Euclidian version of reality which inﬂuences positivist cartography. Similarly, Graham

Addressing the research questions

Does increased access translate to empowerment or further marginalization?

Conclusions and recommendations

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen