Cultural and Institutional Embeddedness of Participatory GIS: A Social Practice Perspective

1. Participatory GISa matter of cultural and institutional embedded-ness Erik de Man ITC (Adapted version of presentation for P-GIS Workshop at GISDECO 2004, Johor Bahru, Malaysia)

2. In the following slides I will … • provide some perspectives of Participatory GIS: “what is P-GIS?” • suggest that P-GIS is a social practice rather than a thing • suggest that P-GIS is embedded in cultural and institutional contexts • propose “institutionalization of P-GIS” as unifying concept

3. A few questions What is P-GIS? Is it • another fancy term to hide inherent weaknesses of technology (techno-centric)? • convenient niche for ambitious academics? • still a hidden “technology” push? • …?

4. What is specific for P-GIS? • what would a non-participatory GIS look like? • is information without participation thinkable? • could there be too much or too little “P-GIS”?

5. What is P-GIS? It is about • participation • society • social capital / societal learning • governance • cultural and institutional embedded-ness

6. Cultural and institutional context of P-GIS culture and institutions “P-GIS” spatial problem solving GIS and GI participation use access other information sources

7. What is participation? • being involved in conducting one’s affairs in society (or group) • is culturally embedded • hence: cultural differences e.g.: • active – passive (Etzioni) • four-dimensions (Hofstede) • ways of life (Douglas)

8. Cultural differences For example: Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (1997): • Power Distance • Collective or Individualistic • Feminine or Masculine • Uncertainty Avoidance

9. Cultural differences and P-GIS • Access to, use of, participation in GI and P-GIS Is it governed by • small Power Distance ? • Feminine rather than Masculine ? • strong Uncertainty Avoidance ?

10. Nordic countries & Netherlands Mediterranean countries Great Britain & USA SE Asian countries small PD & Fem & weak UA large PD & Masc & strong UA small PD & Masc & weak UA Large PD & Masc & weak UA Regional typologiesPD, Fem/Masc, UA, based on Hofstede (1997)

11. Nordic countries & Netherlands Mediterranean countries Great Britain & USA SE Asian countries small PD & Fem & weak UA large PD & Masc & strong UA small PD & Masc & weak UA Large PD & Masc & weak UA Access to, use of, participation in GIsmall PD & Fem & strong UA (?)

12. What is P-GIS? • socially constructed • a practice; not a “thing” • about geo-spatial information; not restricted to data • access to and ownership of data • about geo-spatial problem solving

13. Social Practice Specific for • a Field (or ‘arena’) – F • an Agent (or ‘actor’) – A • a Cultural disposition ( “habitus”) – H • available Capital (or ‘resources’; economic, cultural, social, symbolic) – C For each A : (HA * CA) + FA = SPA Pierre Bourdieu

14. What is P-GIS? • socially constructed • never-ending process • emerges out of negotiations between many heterogeneous actors (ANT or “sociology of translation”) • social practice • a “verb” rather than a “noun” • community of practice • social capital / social learning

15. What is P-GIS? • of course, it should matter and be effective • develops around a common need • facilitates joint learning • contributes to joint/collaborative geospatial problem-solving • has impact on behavior

16. Geo-spatial problem solving • emotional and social bonds are inversely correlated with geographic distance For example: • nearby: issues are integrated and clustered; NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) • remote: issues are specialized/compartmentalized

17. Geo-spatial problem solving • problem-solving behavior • what conditions behavior? • information • culture • institutions

18. culture and institutions “P-GIS” spatial problem solving GIS and GI participation use access other information sources

19. Geo-spatial problem solving • problem-solving behavior must be embedded within existing institutional framework • P-GIS must be embedded within existing institutional framework

20. How then to practice P-GIS?

21. How to practice P-GIS? • addresses a common need • be valued and effective • different cultures require different practices of P-GIS • reciprocity and mutual re-enforcement between existing institutional framework and application of GIS-technology • …?

22. How to practice P-GIS? institutionalization of P-GIS as unifying concept? • institutions are part of social aspect of reality (“real world”) • institutions are both stabilizing and dynamic • institutionalization draws P-GIS into reality

23. How to practice P-GIS? • P-GIS practice itself becomes institutionalised • around a common/social need • being effective and valued • feed-back (“does it work” – joint learning-by-doing)

24. References (1) W.H.Erik de Man (2000). Institutionalization of Geographic Information Technologies: Unifying Concept? Cartography and GIS, Vol. 27 (2). W.H. Erik de Man (2003). Cultural and Institutional Conditions for Using Geographic Information; Access and Participation, URISA Journal, Vol. 15 (2). W.H.Erik de Man and Willem H. van den Toorn (2002). Culture and the adoption and use of GIS within organisations. IJAG, Vol. 4.

25. References (2) A. Etzioni (1968). The active society. (The Free Press.) G. Hofstede (1997), Cultures and organizations; software of the mind. (McGraw-Hill.) E. L. Lesser and J. Storck (2001), Communities of Practice; Communities of practice and organizational performance. IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 40 (4) Derek Reeve and James Petch (1999), GIS, organisations and people; a socio-technical approach. (Taylor&Francis.)

26. References (3) M. Tompson, R. Ellis and A. Wildavsky (1990). Cultural Theory. (Westview.)