IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envira/v45y2013i1p55-69.html

Neogeography and the Delusion of Democratisation

Author

Listed:
  • Mordechai (Muki) Haklay

    (Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, England)

Abstract

Within the academic and popular discussion of neogeography, it is routinely argued that the process of producing and using geographical information has been fundamentally democratised. Neogeography, in contrast to ‘established geography’, especially uses the argument that it is for anyone, anywhere, and anytime. Similar arguments have been used to praise the growth in Web GIS since the mid-1990s and seem to be persistent in the conceptualisation of these technologies. However, what is the nature of this democracy, and to what extent do the technologies that are used in neogeography fulfil this democratisation promise? In this contribution the framework offered by Andrew Feenberg in his critical theory of technology, and especially his call for ‘deep democratisation’, is used to provide a critique of these assertions of the nature of neogeography. The analysis shows that, unlike early critical GIS and the literature on participatory GIS, the analysis of neogeography adopted an instrumentalist interpretation of the technology and its applications. This view claims that technology is value free and that there is a separation between means and ends. This type of argument ignores and disguises the values that are integrated inexorably in advanced technologies. Once the values are exposed and discussed, neogeography becomes far less exciting and transformative. It becomes clear that there is a separation between a technological elite and a wider group of uninformed, labouring participants who are not empowered through the use of the technology. There are also multiple obstacles that limit the democratic potential of neogeography. The analysis progresses by considering the hierarchy of hacking, understood here as the ability to alter and change the meaning and use of a specific technological system. This hierarchy further explains the democratisation potentialities and limits of neogeography. Because of the reduced barriers, neogeography does offer some increased level of democratisation but, to fulfil this potential, it requires careful implementation that takes into account social and political aspects.

Suggested Citation

  • Mordechai (Muki) Haklay, 2013. "Neogeography and the Delusion of Democratisation," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 45(1), pages 55-69, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envira:v:45:y:2013:i:1:p:55-69
    DOI: 10.1068/a45184
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/a45184
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/a45184?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthew Wilson & Mark Graham, 2013. "Neogeography and Volunteered Geographic Information: A Conversation with Michael Goodchild and Andrew Turner," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 45(1), pages 10-18, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Matthew S. Hanchard, 2020. "Digital Maps and Senses of Security: The Influence of a Veracious Media on Urban Life," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(4), pages 301-311.
    2. Gabriela Viale Pereira & Elsa Estevez & Diego Cardona & Carlos Chesñevar & Pablo Collazzo-Yelpo & Maria Alexandra Cunha & Eduardo Henrique Diniz & Alex Antonio Ferraresi & Frida Marina Fischer & Flúvi, 2020. "South American Expert Roundtable: Increasing Adaptive Governance Capacity for Coping with Unintended Side Effects of Digital Transformation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-47, January.
    3. Spyridon Spyratos & Demetris Stathakis, 2018. "Evaluating the services and facilities of European cities using crowdsourced place data," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 45(4), pages 733-750, July.
    4. Rafael Hologa & Nils Riach, 2020. "Approaching Bike Hazards via Crowdsourcing of Volunteered Geographic Information," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-14, August.
    5. Richard Heeks & Satyarupa Shekhar, 2018. "An Applied Data Justice Framework: Analysing Datafication and Marginalised Communities in Cities of the Global South," Global Development Institute Working Paper Series di-74, GDI, The University of Manchester.
    6. Noemi Crescentini, 2026. "Science beyond the ivory tower: participative dynamics and new challenges for the dialogue between citizens and scientists in Italy," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 13(1), pages 1-11, December.
    7. Matthew S. Hanchard, 2020. "Digital Maps and Senses of Security: The Influence of a Veracious Media on Urban Life," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(4), pages 301-311.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mark Graham & Matthew Zook, 2013. "Augmented Realities and Uneven Geographies: Exploring the Geolinguistic Contours of the Web," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 45(1), pages 77-99, January.
    2. Matthew W Wilson & Mark Graham, 2013. "Situating Neogeography," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 45(1), pages 3-9, January.
    3. Graeme Mearns & Rebecca Simmonds & Ranald Richardson & Mark Turner & Paul Watson & Paolo Missier, 2014. "Tweet My Street: A Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration for the Analysis of Local Twitter Data," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-19, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envira:v:45:y:2013:i:1:p:55-69. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.