women and gis

7/29/2019 Women and GIS

1/10

Women and GIS: Geospatial Technologiesand Feminist Geographies

Sara McLaffertyDepartment of Geography / University of Illinois / Urbana / IL / USA

Abstract

This article explores the emerging intersections between feminism and GIS in relation to changes in GIS technologies andthe impacts of such technologies on womens lives. I argue that the past decade has seen an increasing feminization ofGIS that involves innovations in GIS technologies and research practices, growing critical self-awareness among GISresearchers, and the development of feminist visualization as a research tool. At the same time, GIS and related geospatialtechnologies have become more embedded and pervasive in everyday life. The effects of new geospatial technologies onthe gendered spaces of social and political life at a variety of spatial scales are discussed, with particular attention togendered identities, geographical dimensions of everyday life, and womens activism.

Keywords: GIS, feminism, geospatial technologies

Resume

Larticle porte sur les croisements entre le feminisme et les systemes dinformation geographique (SIG), les modificationsapportees aux technologies liees aux SIG et les effets de ces technologies sur la vie des femmes. Lauteur affirme que,depuis une dizaine dannees, les SIG se sont feminisees . Par exemple, il y a eu des innovations en matiere detechnologies et de pratiques de recherche, de meme quune prise de conscience de soi accrue parmi les chercheurs, et lavisualisation feminine est devenue un outil de recherche. Au meme moment, les SIG et les technologies geospatialesassociees se sont taille une place dans la vie quotidienne. Lauteur parle aussi des effets des nouvelles technologiesgeospatiales sur les aspects de la vie sociale et politique divises selon le sexe, qui sont definis par une variete dechellesspatiales. Une attention particuliere est accordee aux identites selon le sexe, aux dimensions geographiques de la viequotidienne et a lactivisme des femmes.

Mots cles: SIG, feminisme, technologies geospatiales

Innovation often takes place when divergent schools of

thought are connected areas of endeavour that, on the

surface, have little in common. A new lens shifts our

worldview, bringing new areas into focus and opening up

new avenues of dialogue. This is beginning to happen

between GIS and feminist geography two of the most

dynamic research areas in geography during the past

decade. Once separated by a wide epistemological chasm,

the two fields are moving closer together. GIS researchers

and feminist geographers are starting to talk and

collaborate, and a small but growing group of researchers

have their feet firmly planted in both fields. The result is

an emerging feminization of GIS. This trend is tied to

important innovations in GIS technologies and research

practices, including the incorporation of new types of data

in GIS, increases in critical self-awareness among GIS

researchers, and the development of feminist visualization

as a research tool.

cartographica (volume 40, issue 4) 37


2/10

Exploring the connections between feminism and GIS

also forces us to look outside the box to examineGIS as more than a research and visualization tool.As geospatial technologies become more pervasive and

mobile, their impacts extend far beyond the researchcommunity, affecting the gendered social relations of

everyday life. Todays geospatial technologies comprisemuch more than geographic information systems.

Information from surveillance cameras, vehicle navigationsystems, cellular phones, tracking systems, and point-of-sale databases is geographic information in the sense

that it is tied to locations on the earths surface. The

computerized systems that link, analyse, and displaysuch information are rudimentary GIS. Thus, for thepurposes of this article, I define GIS quite broadly to

encompass digital geographic information and thewide array of technologies for collecting, manipulating,

and transmitting that information over increasingly largedistances, as well as communications technologies thatenable and enhance long-distance spatial interactions.

A feminist perspective calls for critically examining thesituatedness of GIS and emerging geospatial technolo-gies and how they are affecting the gendered spaces

of social and political life at a variety of spatial scales.As the technologies become more embedded in daily life,

they begin to influence womens identities, their politicalactivism, and their interactions and activities at home

and work. Feminism heightens our awareness of theseimportant connections.

This article is organized in three sections. The first section

is a brief discussion of feminist technology studies andfeminist epistemology. The second examines the genderedconstruction of GIS, highlighting the evolution of the

technology toward a more feminist model. I argue that

these changes in the technology call for a shift of focusfrom feminist critiques of GIS to feminist analyses of howGIS technologies are influencing gendered social relations.

The third section explores these issues by discussinghow GIS and communications technologies are affecting

feminist geographies. This section examines the impactsof technologies in three areas: gendered identities,

geographical dimensions of everyday life, and womensactivism. I offer a selective summary of the literature

that focuses on impacts on women and on the NorthAmerican context. Effects on women are emphasized

because that is the group I know best; however, theimpacts on men and masculinities also deserve attention.

Feminist Perspectives on Technology

In the past three decades, gender and technologydiscourse has moved away from a pro-technology

stance, in which technologies are viewed as tools forliberating women from toilsome daily tasks, and anopposing anti-technology stance in which technologies

perpetuate and reproduce gendered social relations

(Faulkner 2001). Recent literature presents a morenuanced view that focuses on the social constructionof technologies and their impacts on gendered social

relations (Light 1995; Wacjman 2000). Such a viewsees gender and technology as mutually constituted.

It acknowledges that technologies can have both positiveand negative impacts at the same time and that impacts

vary among diverse social groups. As Wendy Faulknerwrites, just as one cannot understand technologywithout reference to gender, one cannot understand

gender without reference to technology (2001, 90).

These new perspectives on gender and technologyare rooted in feminist epistemology. Feminists highlight

the importance of positionality the situatedness of

knowledge and the lack of objectivity in science (Haraway1991). There are many types of knowledge, eachdependent on the position of the knower in relation

to the subject of knowledge. People see informationdifferently, pose different questions, and arrive at different

conclusions. Reflexivity is another key concept in feministepistemology. It refers to the ability to act in the worldand to critically reflect on our actions and in ways that

may reconstitute how we act and feel and even reshapethe very nature of self identity (Ferguson 2003, 199).

In feminist geography, it most often describes a criticalself-awareness on the part of the researcher, a conscious,

introspective effort to understand ones position in aresearch endeavour and to interrogate the uneven land-scapes of power within which research is situated

(Moss 1995; Rose 1997; Katz 1994; England 1994).

It also involves efforts to give voice to the subjects ofresearch through diverse forms of expression. It entails

relations of support, trust, and empathy among research-ers, analysts, and subjects (Cloke and others 2000).

Technologies like GIS affect positionality and reflexivityby altering the positions and power of people and groups.

The technologies privilege and convey certain types ofknowledge and communicate particular types of images

and messages (Sui and Goodchild 2001). At the sametime, the technologies are themselves positioned in webs

of social and economic relations that affect how thetechnologies develop and how, where, and by whom they

are used.

The Gendered Construction of GIS

Is GIS a masculinist technology? Many GIS researchers

would view this as an absurd question. How can atechnology have a gender, and what intrinsic character-

istics of the technology make it masculine in character?Critics, however, have been quick to draw parallels

between masculinity and GIS. Susan Roberts andRichard Schein state, GIS is a gendered technologyrelying on scientific knowledge: it is a product of a

Sara McLafferty

38 cartographica (volume 40, issue 4)


3/10

scientific mind conceived as male and disembodied

(1995, 189). Critics also stress the close ties betweenpositivism and GIS (Lake 1993) and the fact that GIS is

heavily used in masculinist areas of application such as themilitary (Smith 1992).

There are many reasons why some authors have

characterized GIS as masculinist. GIS is a detached

observer, viewing its subjects from afar (Roberts andSchein 1995). GIS information is often remotely sensed,deriving from satellites, cameras, or government surveys.

The uncritical reliance on secondary data makes many

GIS applications appear masculinist. Along with itsdetached viewpoint, the technology is not highly reflexive.

Until recently, most GIS applications severed the personaland social connections between GIS researchers and

the subjects of GIS. The traditional data model used inGIS reinforces the distance between researchers and

subjects. People are represented as spatial objects points on a map and their activity patterns as linear

pathways. In GIS, the places where people live consist of

assemblages of buildings, facilities, and environmentalcharacteristics, devoid of meaning and place attachment.As many critics have argued, GIS relies on a Cartesian

space that has little in common with the rich, multi-

layered social and perceptual spaces of everyday life(Sheppard and others 1999).

The main areas of GIS application, particularly in the

early years of technology development, reinforced themasculinist label. GIS developed in the unpopulated

worlds of land management, national defence, andenvironmental assessment; people and their activities

were largely absent from these early applications. Forexample, the GBF-DIME system, the US Census Bureaus

first GIS, was developed primarily to facilitate collectionand reporting of census data, rather than as a tool for

understanding the census population. The strong tiesbetween the military and GIS also give weight to the

masculinist label. The military has been a major driver oftechnical innovations in GIS, and military operations

increasingly rest on a GIS foundation (Smith 1992). For

instance, GIS is at the heart of the Pentagons efforts toachieve virtual warfare.

Although the history of GIS is bound up with masculinist

endeavours, I agree with Mei-Po Kwan (2002c) andNadine Schuurman (2002) that the technology is not

inherently masculinist. In fact, some aspects of GIS arestrongly feminist. GIS is a visual technology that relies

on data exploration, layering, and visualization. There isno single best representation of GIS data; users interact

with the technology to create their own representations.

GIS is much more user driven and less tied to a rigid setof procedures than are many spatial analytic techniques.Furthermore, because the information in GIS is place

based, GIS supports a form of grounded knowledgethat is similar to feminist modes of understanding.

For women, knowledge is often rooted in experience

and observation. GIS can be used to overlay and displayinformation about places in a way that corresponds to

womens ways of knowing. In Long Island, NY, womenbreast cancer activists embraced GIS in part because

it supported their intuitive, grounded understandings ofthe connections between the disease and environmental

hazards (McLafferty 2002).

Recent theoretical and technical developments in GISreveal an increasing feminization of the technology.

I use the term feminization to refer to changes in the

use and construction of GIS that make the technologymore compatible with feminist understandings of research

and practice. In other words, feminization does not meanincreased numbers of women in the GIS field but, rather,

broad changes in the technology and its application thatare making it more feminist in character. Some of these

changes have been propelled by feminist researchers andby critical GIS researchers drawing on feminist theories.

Others are unintended consequences of technological

innovations that have allied GIS more closely withmultimedia technologies.

Feminist geographers have proposed innovative changesin how GIS is used and structured. Kwan (2002b)

describes the use of GIS for feminist visualization, aprocess of data exploration and discovery that takes

advantage of the visual power and properties of GIS. GIS

is used in mapping womens life paths in space and time,in understanding the geographical contexts of everyday

life, in constructing cartographic narratives that capturethe richness of womens lives, and in a host of other

feminist research contexts. Kwans work opens up thepossibilities for a much more reflexive GIS that strength-

ens the connections between the subjects of GIS andthe people who view or analyse geographical information.

It also calls upon feminist geographers to use GIS toexplore the geographical contexts and constraints on

womens daily lives. Examples of this type of feministresearch are beginning to appear in the literature

(Pavlovskaya 2002).

Recent efforts to incorporate qualitative, multimediainformation into GIS are also contributing to the growing

feminization of the technology. Sketch maps and local

knowledge have been brought into GIS to representdiverse understandings of space and place (Harris and

Weiner 1998; Rocheleau, Thomas-Slayter, and Edmunds1995). Researchers are linking oral history and diary

information to people and places in GIS to give voice,literally, to research subjects (Matthews, Burton, and

Detwiler 2001). Multimedia GIS is also gaining a foothold

in humanities research. There are innovative efforts atbringing together historical maps, texts, and diaries in GISto reveal the complex, multifaceted trajectories of change

through time and space (Costa 2003; Ray 2003). Thesenew developments capture the richness of people and

Women and GIS: Geospatial Technologies and Feminist Geographies



4/10

places and give more voice to research subjects. Kwans

research on the impact of 9/11 on Muslim womenexemplifies this new reflexivity in GIS (Kwan 2002b).

Using data from videos and travel diaries, she examineshow Muslim women navigated the uneasy and hostile

spaces of everyday life after 9/11. Women speak of theirfears and experiences as they move through the

GIS-based urban landscape. The result is a GIS thatembodies its subjects.

The feminization of GIS is also apparent in the

heightened interest in reflexivity among critical GIS

researchers. Reflexivity involves relations of support,trust, and empathy among researchers and researched.

It entails a serious commitment to give back to thecommunities studied and to support their own efforts

to enhance their social and material well-being (Clokeand others 2000; Moss 1995). Although much GIS

research is not explicitly concerned with reflexivity,there is a growing emphasis, particularly among critical

GIS researchers, on community participation and

giving back. Rina Ghose (2001), for example, describesa communityuniversity partnership in the MetcalfePark neighbourhood in Milwaukee that aims to provide

equitable access to GIS among traditionally marginalized

citizens (143). A community team received trainingin GIS and used GIS in exploring issues such as absenteelandlords and geographic concentrations of abandoned

properties. Results were used to push city agencies forimprovements in sanitation and crime prevention

services. There are many similar examples in the public

participation GIS literature of working with communitiesto achieve progressive social change.

Finally, a growing feminist influence is evident in the

heightened awareness of how power relations shape theconstruction and use of GIS (Sheppard and others 1999).

Feminists emphasize that power is situated and gendered.The development of GIS in a particular context both

influences and is influenced by prevailing power relations.Critical GIS researchers have begun to interrogate the

uneven landscapes of power in which GIS develop (Harris

and Weiner 1998). Case studies show that GIS is oftena force of empowerment and disempowerment at the

same time and that GIS can be appropriated by powerfulinstitutions and people (Elwood 2002).

GIS research, in other words, has become much more

feminist in character than it was a decade ago. Thegrowth of the critical GIS literature, the heightened

diversity of GIS applications, and the evolution of thetechnology into a multimedia tool all reflect an increased

compatibility with feminist understandings and the

increased role of GIS in feminist research. Despite theseadvances, however, it would be wrong to characterizeGIS as completely feminist. Men still predominate in the

discipline of GIS, both in faculty positions and in theworkforce as a whole (Haggar 2000; Schuurman 2002),

and many areas of GIS, especially the core technical areas,

remain untouched by feminism. Thus, although the

influence of feminism on GIS has increased significantly,it is unevenly spread across GIS research and applications.

The feminization of GIS is an ongoing and emergingprocess whose impacts are concentrated in a few key

areas. Still, GIS technology has moved far beyond the

detached, command-driven systems that predominatedtwo decades ago.

As GIS moves in these new directions, feminist under-standings of GIS need to broaden their gaze from the

technology itself to the impacts of geospatial technologieson gendered social relations. Feminist technology studies

call for understanding the complex interrelations between

gender and technology, and such insights are deeply

relevant for GIS. Furthermore, as GIS becomes moreclosely allied with information and communications

technologies, the impacts of GIS extend into many

realms of everyday life (Sui and Goodchild 2001; Kwanand Weber 2003). Cell phones, tracking devices, vehicle

navigation systems, and the Internet itself are geospatialtechnologies insofar as they can be used to locate things

and to communicate and interact over space. Increasingly,

GIS-type querying and analysis systems are embedded inthese technologies, blurring the divisions between GIS

and digital geospatial technologies. A feminist perspective

on technology asks us to look beyond the hardware and

software of GIS to consider the gendered geographicalimpacts of this broad suite of geospatial technologies.

Increasingly present and embedded in everyday life,

such technologies are changing womens social andspatial interactions. In the sections that follow I explore

these impacts in three critical areas: gendered identities,

geographies of everyday life, and womens activism.

Geospatial Technologies and Gendered Identities

Among the most important effects of emerging geospatial

technologies are their impacts on gendered identities.

New technologies convey images of and informationabout people and environments at a wide range of spatial

scales, from the most intimate spaces of the home tothe neighbourhood, regional, national, and international

scales. Little is known about how the proliferation of

geographical images and information is affecting peoples

self-identities and their images of people and placeselsewhere. Many of these images are filtered and created

by institutions, corporations, and government agencies

that control what people see and dont see. At the sametime, the Internet provides a much more unrestricted

and diverse source of geographical information (Light

1995). We need to know more about who uses whattypes of geographical information, where that information

comes from, and how it is reshaping peoples under-standings of themselves and the world around them.

Sara McLafferty



5/10

The concept of extensibility the ability to overcome

the friction of distance (Janelle 1973) underpins our

understanding of how technologies and the resulting

processes of globalization are redefining personal iden-

tities. Personal boundaries in space and time, so crucial

to the formation of identities, are becoming more fluid

and dynamic in the context of globalization (Adams

1995). Geographic information from the Internet andother sources is critically important in redefining these

personal boundaries. Kwan (2001) describes a process

of cyber-spatial cognition whereby people gain access

to information from the Internet. Access to information

reflects the complex interplay between individual deci-

sions, resources, and the constraints and opportunities

present in the cyber-environment. Cyber-information,

in turn, influences individual identities and behaviours.

These impacts are likely to vary by gender because men

and women have different patterns of Internet and

technology use; they may seek out different kinds of

geographical information, and they may respond differ-

ently to the information provided (Faulkner 2001; Chen,Boase, and Wellman 2002). Studies show that women

are more likely than men to use the Internet and e-mail

to communicate with friends and family, whereas men

rely on the Internet more for news, entertainment, and

business (Boneva and Kraut 2002).

New technologies like GIS also affect gendered identities

by altering the scale and scope of social networks. The

Internet and e-mail enable people to keep in touch and

acquire information over vast distances at low cost, thus

breaking down some of the geographical barriers that

once constrained interpersonal networks. From chat

rooms to on-line support groups for cancer patients to

buddy lists, people are relying more on personal contacts

in virtual space. These cyber-social networks are anincreasingly important source of social capital that

connects in complex ways with more traditional place-

based social networks (Hampton and Wellman 2001).

Little is known about how these networks unfold; how

they differ by class, gender, and ethnicity; and how they,

in turn, affect identities (but see Boneva and Kraut 2002).

A key area for feminist geographical inquiry is to

understand how immigrant women draw upon these

extensible cyber-social networks. Immigrants increas-

ingly make use of complex, multi-scalar social networks

as they negotiate the challenges of everyday life in a newplace. If available, technology allows women to maintain

contacts with friends and family in their place of origin

while simultaneously developing place-based social

networks in the area where they now live. But many

barriers exist to immigrant womens use of technology,

including cost, knowledge, availability, gender norms,

and patriarchal relations in the household. RanjanaChakrabarti (2005) is exploring these issues in relation

to access to prenatal care by South Asian immigrant

women, a group that has low utilization of formal

prenatal care services. Her preliminary results show thatwomen increasingly obtain informal support and advicefrom friends and family back home in addition to people

and resources in their local communities.

The impacts of technology on gendered identities aremitigated by social, cultural, and economic forces that

restrict access to technology and reinforce traditionalgender roles. In a study of Internet use by Muslim women

in Kuwait, Deborah Wheeler found that local culturalconstraints make female Internet use a limited force for

social change (2001, 206). Place-based cultural normsthat defined womens role and place in societyconstrained the impacts of the Internet. Technology is

situated within localized social, cultural, and political

relations that influence how it is used, by whom, andfor what.

In addition to these localized norms and constraints,

technology itself is often a source of information thatreinforces traditional gendered identities. We find

caricatures of women and men, stereotypes, degradingimages views of people and places from every possiblevantage point. We also find Internet sites constructed by

and aimed at particular ethnic, social, or cultural groupsthat support cultural conceptions of gender. A matrimo-nial Web site for non-resident Indians in the United States

reinforces the traditional construction of the ideal bride

in terms of physical characteristics, caste, and socialbackground (Adams and Ghose 2003). Thus, the Internethas seemingly contradictory possibilities. It has the

potential to mould new gendered identities or to preserveidentities in a static, culturally inscribed form. How

these effects unfold depends critically on the types ofinformation people seek out and find, how they perceive

that information, and how it fits in the context oftheir own socially defined gender roles, images, andresponsibilities. Ironically, global technologies are

heightening the significance of place.

Geospatial Technologies and Everyday Life

GIS and related technologies are also affecting thegeographical dimensions of everyday life. An increasing

array of household tasks shopping, searching for ahome, planning a vacation, finding a doctor can now

be done remotely. As use of these opportunities grows,we are likely to see corresponding changes in peoplesspatial interactions and spatial behaviours. The well-

established gender division of labour in the householdmeans that the impacts of geospatial technologies on

everyday life will fall unevenly on women and men.Given womens larger share of household tasks, their

lives are more likely than mens to be affected, althoughthat gender division may also change. Geographers arejust beginning to examine these impacts and their




6/10

spatial implications. Kwan (2002a) notes that we may see

two types of impacts. On the one hand, use of the Internetfor shopping and other household chores may free up

time for work and leisure activities (Kotkin 2001). Studiesindicate that Internet shoppers make fewer shopping trips

and spend more time at home. On the other hand, theInternet opens up a wide array of shopping opportunities

and tools for evaluating those opportunities. People mayspend more time making decisions, but less time in travel.

In some cases, however, use of geographic information onthe Internet increases geographical mobility as people

travel longer distances to obtain the best opportunities.In health care, for example, Internet-based rankings

of hospitals and doctors are causing some people to

travel further to get high-quality medical treatment.These implications also differ by age, class, and other

socio-economic divisions. The persistent digital dividemeans that in the emerging digital landscape, those who

lack access to technologies lead increasingly isolated lives(Castells 1996).

Geospatial technologies are also affecting employmentdecisions. People looking for work can use geographicsearch engines to identify job opportunities in particular

places. Internet-based job postings open up a huge array

of employment opportunities to job seekers in far-flunglocations. Labour markets are increasingly global,although workers remain relatively bound to place.

These trends intersect in complex ways with genderdivisions at home and at work. Men and women use

different strategies in finding employment. Women aremore likely than men to centre their job search on the

home, to search for work near home, and to usecommunity connections in finding work (Hanson and

Pratt 1995). Does this mean that women are less likelyto use information technologies in finding employment?

If so, then in the long run womens job opportunities willbe more geographically restricted than mens, which will

lead to heightened gender inequality in labour-marketoutcomes. Alternatively, access to information may open

up new employment opportunities for women. Such

impacts are particularly relevant for low-income women,who face a complex mix of social, economic, and

geographical barriers to finding and keeping well-paidemployment (Gilbert 1998).

Technologies are also changing the location and nature

of paid employment. Telecommuting is on the rise.More people work from home or as mobile workers

shifting from place to place (Ellison 1999). A growingliterature explores the gendered impacts and implications

of these new forms of employment. In the United States,

telecommuting is approximately equally split betweenmen and women; however, women and men differ intheir reasons for telecommuting and in the type and

location of employment. Many women have no alter-native but to work at home because of the low wages

available to them and the high cost of childcare. Others

choose to work at home to accommodate domestic and

childcare responsibilities (Gurstein 1991). In contrast,

men are more likely to work at home in order to increase

productivity, escape a corporate work environment, or

free up time for leisure activities (Aitken and Carroll

2003). Regardless of the reasons, for both women and

men, telecommuting leads to a blurring of the boundariesbetween home and work and to a transfer of business

expenses from the employer to the worker (Salaff 2002).

Another area where geographical technologies are pene-

trating everyday life is in surveillance and monitoring.

Closed-circuit TV cameras, high-resolution satellite

imagery, tracking devices, cell phones, and geographically

linked databases connect people in new and complex ways(Curry 1998). Individual rights to privacy and confiden-

tiality face a huge challenge as corporations, governments,

and individuals collect and analyse an ever-increasing

array of personal, geo-coded information (Brady and

others 2001). Jerome Dobson and Peter Fisher (2003)

describe the rise of geoslavery, a situation in whichthe master coercively or surreptitiously monitors or

exerts control over the location of another individual

(42). Although both men and women are affected, there

may be gender differences in impact linked to broader

gender divisions. Womens greater domestic responsibil-

ities may make them more vulnerable than men to

corporate tracking of purchases and expenditures and

associated corporate marketing campaigns. For women

in a borderline financial position, such information

threatens efforts to establish a good credit rating or

purchase a home. Interactions within households are

also changing. Cell phones and pagers allow parents to

keep in touch with hyper-mobile teenage children.

Households are more connected in virtual space as theirconnections in physical space decline. Women often find

themselves at the centre of these virtual networks,

monitoring and coordinating household activities.

At a more insidious level, tracking systems can be used to

perpetuate gender norms and keep women in their

place. Dobson and Fisher (2003) describe a frightening

scenario in which family members or jealous partners use

GPS to monitor womens movements and ensure their

compliance with family or cultural norms. Women who

violate cultural norms about spatial behaviour face

punishment or even death. The authors argue thatgeoslavery is fundamentally a womens rights issue

(50). As we begin to explore the impacts of surveillance

and communications technologies, the key point is the

connection between geospatial technologies and power,

a point emphasized in the feminist literature on

technology (Faulkner 2001). Geospatial technologies

enable people, families, institutions, and corporationsto exert power over other people by monitoring their

movements and behaviours. The tools are situated within

Sara McLafferty



7/10

existing power relations that affect how, when, and by

whom they are used and their long-term impacts. The

same devices that make it easier for parents to keep in

touch with children make wife-tracking possible. We need

to know more about the types of power embedded inthese technologies and their gendered impacts.

Geospatial Technologies and Womens ActivismThe widespread availability of geographic information

and tools for communicating and analysing that infor-

mation are beginning to affect womens activism. Via the

Internet one can access maps and data on health and

health care, environmental quality, crime, social services,and demographics. There are also free Web-based GIS,

such as LandView, to support rudimentary spatial

analysis. Although an increasing number of studies

examine the use of GIS in community-based development

projects (Ghose 2001; Harris and Weiner 1998; Stonich

1998), little is known about the gendered impacts of

community-based GIS. What we do know is that womenactivists are increasingly sophisticated in their use and

understanding of geographic information and that such

information is playing a more important role in theirefforts (Gilbert and Masucci 2005).

In the Long Island breast cancer example, geographic

information underpinned womens quest for knowledge

about the local breast cancer problem (McLafferty 2005).

Women conducted their own surveys, created pin mapsof breast cancer, and collaborated with researchers in

using GIS to find out more about breast cancer and

environmental contamination. Their efforts were so

successful that they convinced the federal government

to fund a $5 million Health-GIS for Long Island. TheLong Island case is not an isolated example. Breast cancer

activists in Cape Cod have created a space-time GIS to

reconstruct womens historical environmental exposures

(Paulu, Aschengrau, and Ozonoff 2002), and there are

similar examples for issues such as crime, environmentaljustice, and housing.

Communications technologies and geographic informa-

tion are also important for coalition building. In Long

Island, maps of breast cancer were crucial in generating

support for the issue across diverse communities and inscaling up the breast cancer movement to the national

scale. Many authors discuss how women activists can usethe Internet to seek information, build public support,

and network with activists in different places who are

concerned about the same issue (Steinstra 2002). Women

need to seize control of communications technologies

and appropriate them for progressive purposes (Light

1995).

These efforts are always constrained by gender-basedpower differentials as well as by those rooted in class,

ethnicity, location, and other socio-political divisions.

Technologies can be both empowering and dis-empowering at the same time by inducing different types

of change. Geospatial technologies have varying effects onempowerment, depending on how the technologies arestructured and used, where, and by whom (Elwood 2001;Harris and Wiener 1998). In the Long Island case, women

seized upon GIS and used it effectively to raise awareness ofbreast cancer in their communities and to mobilizefunding for breast cancer research. However, as federalgovernments involvement in the issue increased, GIS

was recast in biomedical terms that included restrictions onpublic access and an emphasis on research applications(McLafferty 2005). Womens activism influenced theconstruction of GIS and its use in exploring the associa-

tions between cancer and environmental contamination,while the changing construction of GIS, in turn, influencedwomens activism. The situatedness of geographicaltechnologies and their complex and often conflicting

effects on womens activism demand further researchattention (Gilbert and Masucci 2005).

Conclusion

Over the past decade, GIS technologies have becomemuch more feminist in character. The multimediaconstruction of the technologies, the increasingly diverse

range of GIS applications, the heightened attention to thepositioning of GIS technologies in webs of social relations,and the growing awareness of reflexivity in GIS all signalcloser ties between feminism and GIS. Some of these

changes are a result of critical geographers advocatingfeminist approaches and embracing feminist epistemolo-gies; others are made possible by technological changes

that make GIS a multimedia tool and connect it withcommunications technologies; others reflect the diffusionof GIS into disciplines such as history, English, and finearts. Regardless of its underlying causes, the feminization

of GIS is reshaping our theoretical understandings of thetechnology and opening up exciting new areas ofapplication.

The proliferation of geospatial technologies throughoutsociety and in many areas of everyday life opens up anew set of questions for feminist geographical inquiry.

How are the technologies affecting the daily lives of menand women, and how are they transforming genderedsocial relations? I have identified three broad areas where

the gendered impacts of geospatial technologies areclearly evident, but many other possibilities exist.In an increasingly GIS-enabled world, these topics callout for research attention.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to the editors, Marianna Pavlovskaya, Mei-PoKwan, and Francis Harvey, and to the anonymous reviewersfor their helpful comments.




8/10

Author Information

Sara McLafferty is Professor of Geography at the Universityof Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Geography,229 Davenport Hall, 607 Mathews Avenue, Urbana, IL61801-3671 USA. E-mail: [email protected].

References

Adams, P. 1995.A Reconsideration of Personal Boundaries inSpace-Time. Annals of the Association of AmericanGeographers 85: 26785.

Adams, P., and R. Ghose. 2003. India.com: Construction of aPlace Between. Progress in Human Geography 27: 41437.

Aitken, S., and M. Carroll. 2003. Mans Place in the Home:Telecommuting, Identity and Urban Space. Available athttp://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/conf/BALTIMORE/authors/aitken/paper.html.

Boneva, B., and R. Kraut. 2002. Email, Gender and PersonalRelationships. In The Internet in Everyday Life, ed.B. Wellman and C. Haythornthwaite. Malden, MA:Blackwell. 372403.

Brady, H., S. Grand, M. Powell, and W. Schink. 2001. Accessand Confidentiality Issues with Administrative Data. InStudies of Welfare Populations: Data Collection and ResearchIssues, ed. M. Ver Ploeg, R. Moffitt, and C. Citro. Washington,DC: National Academies Press. 22074.

Castells, M. 1996. The Rise of the Network Society.Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Chakrabarti, R. 2005. Place, Culture and Prenatal Care:Bengali Immigrant Women in New York City. Paper read atthe Annual Meeting of the Association of AmericanGeographers, 6 April, Denver, CO.

Chen, W., J. Boase, and B. Wellman. 2002. The GlobalVillagers: Comparing Internet Users and Uses Around the

World. In The Internet in Everyday Life, ed. B. Wellman andC. Haythornthwaite. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 74113.

Cloke, P., P. Cooke, J. Cursons, P. Milbourne, andR. Widdowfield. 2000. Ethics, Reflexivity and Research:Encounters with Homeless People. Ethics, Place andEnvironment 3: 13354.

Costa, T. 2003. The Geography of Slavery in Virginia. Availableat http://www.vcdh.virginia.edu/gos/.

Curry, M. 1998. Digital Places: Living with GeographicInformation Technologies. New York: Routledge.

Dobson, J., and P. Fisher. 2003. Geoslavery. IEEE Technologyand Society Magazine (spring): 4752.

Ellison, N. 1999. Social Impacts: New Perspectives onTelework. Social Science Computer Review 17: 33856.

Elwood, S. 2002. GIS in Community Planning: AMultidimensional Analysis of Empowerment. Environmentand Planning A 34: 90522.

England, K. 1994. Getting Personal: Reflexivity, Positionalityand Feminist Research. Professional Geographer 46: 8089.

Faulkner, W. 2001. The Technology Question in Feminism:A View from Feminist Technology Studies. Womens StudiesInternational Forum 24: 7995.

Ferguson, H. 2003. Welfare, Social Exclusions andReflexivity: The Case of Child and Woman Protection.Journal of Social Policy 32: 199216.

Ghose, R. 2001. Use of Information Technology forCommunity Empowerment: Transforming GeographicInformation Systems into Community Information Systems.Transactions in GIS 5: 141163.

Gilbert, M. 1998. Race, Space and Power: The Survival

Strategies of Poor, Working Women. Annals of theAssociation of American Geographers 88: 595621.

Gilbert, M., and M. Masucci. 2005. Moving Beyond Genderand GIS to a Feminist Perspective on InformationTechnologies: The Impact of Welfare Reform on Womens ITNeeds. In A Companion to Feminist Geography, ed. L. Nelsonand J. Seager. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 30521.

Gurstein, P. 1991. Working at Home and Living at Home:Emerging Scenarios. Journal of Architectural and PlanningResearch 8: 16480.

Haggar, R. 2000. GIS: Gendered Information Systems. Paperread at the Annual Meeting of the Association of AmericanGeographers, 6 April, Pittsburgh, PA.

Hampton, K., and B. Wellman. 2001. Long DistanceCommunity in the Network Society: Contact and SupportBeyond Netville. American Behavioral Scientist 45: 47695.

Hanson, S., and G. Pratt. 1995. Gender, Work and Space.New York: Routledge.

Haraway, D. 1991. Simians, Cyborgs and Women: TheReinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge.

Harris, T., and D. Weiner. 1998. Empowerment,Marginalization and Community-Integrated GIS.Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 25: 6776.

Janelle, D. 1973. Measuring Human Extensibility in aShrinking World. Journal of Geography 72: 815.

Katz, C. 1994. Playing the Field: Questions of Fieldwork inGeography. Professional Geographer 46: 6772.

Kotkin, J. 2001. The New Geography: How the DigitalRevolution Is Reshaping the American Landscape.New York: Random House.

Kwan, M.-P. 2001. Cyberspatial Cognition and IndividualAccess to Information: The Behavioral Foundation ofCybergeography. Environment and Planning B: Planningand Design 28: 2127.

. 2002a. Time, Information Technologies and theGeographies of Everyday Life. Urban Geography 23: 47182.

. 2002b. Feminist Visualization: Re-envisioning GIS as aMethod in Feminist Geographic Research. Annals of the

Association of American Geographers 92: 64561.

. 2002c. Is GIS for Women? Reflections on theCritical Discourse in the 1990s. Gender, Place and Culture9: 27179.

Kwan, M.-P., and J. Weber. 2003. Individual AccessibilityRevisited: Implications for Geographical Analysis in theTwenty-First Century. Geographical Analysis 35: 34151.

Lake, R. 1993. Planning and Applied Geography: Positivism,Ethics and Geographic Information Systems. Progress inHuman Geography 17: 40413.

Sara McLafferty



9/10

Light, J. 1995. The Digital Landscape: New Space forWomen? Gender, Place and Culture 1: 13346.

Matthews, S., L. Burton, and J. Detwiler. 2001. ViewingPeople and Places: Conceptual and Methodological Issuesin Coupling Geographic Information Analysis andEthnographic Research. Paper read at conference onGIS and Critical Geographic Research, 25 February,New York, NY.

McLafferty, S. 2002. Mapping Womens Worlds: Knowledge,Power and the Bounds of GIS. Gender, Place and Culture9: 26369.

. 2005. GIS and Womens Empowerment: A BreastCancer Example. In A Companion to Feminist Geography, ed. L. Nelson and J. Seager. Malden, MA:Blackwell. 48695.

Moss, P. 1995. Embeddedness in Practice, Numbers inContext: The Politics of Knowing and Doing. ProfessionalGeographer 47: 44249.

Paulu, C., A. Aschengrau, and C. Ozonoff. 2002. ExploringAssociations between Residential Location and Breast CancerIncidence in a Case-Control Study. Environmental HealthPerspectives110: 47178.

Pavlovskaya, M. 2002.Mapping Urban Change and ChangingGIS. Gender, Place and Culture 9: 28189.

Ray, B. 2003. Salem Witch Trials: Documentary Archive andTranscription Project. Available at http://etext.virginia.edu/salem/witchcraft/home.html.

Roberts, S., and R. Schein. 1995. Earth Shattering: GlobalImagery and GIS. In Ground Truth: The Social Implications ofGeographic Information Systems, ed. J. Pickles. New York:Guilford. 17195.

Rocheleau, D., B. Thomas-Slayter, and D. Edmunds. 1995.Gendered Resource Mapping: Focusing Womens Spaces inthe Landscape. Cultural Survival Quarterly 18: 6268.

Rose, G. 1997. Situating Knowledges: Positionality,Reflexivities and Other Tactics. Progress in HumanGeography 21: 30520.

Salaff, J. 2002. Where Home Is the Office: New Formsof Flexible Work. In The Internet in Everyday Life, ed.B. Wellman and C. Haythornthwaite. Malden, MA: Blackwell.46495.

Schuurman, N. 2002. Women and Technology in Geography:

A Cyborg Manifesto for GIS. The Canadian Geographer 46:26265.

Sheppard, E., H. Couclelis, S. Graham, J. Harrington, andH. Onsrud. 1999. Geographies of the Information Society.International Journal of Geographical Information Science13: 797823.

Smith, N. 1992. History and Philosophy of Geography:Real Wars, Theory Wars. Progress in Human Geography 16:25771.

Steinstra, D. 2002. Gender, Womens Organizing, and theInternet. In Technology, Development and Democracy:International Conflict and Cooperation in the InformationAge, ed J. Allison. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. 187212.

Stonich, S. 1998. Information Technologies, Advocacy, andDevelopment: Resistance and Backlash to Industrial ShrimpFarming. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems25: 11322.

Sui, D., and M. Goodchild. 2001. GIS as Media?International Journal of Geographical Information Science15: 38790.

Wajcman, J. 2000.Reflections on Gender and Technology: InWhat State Is the Art? Social Studies of Science30: 44764.

Wheeler, D. 2001. Old Culture, New Technology: A Look atWomen, Gender and the Internet in Kuwait. In Culture,Technology, Communication: Towards an Intercultural GlobalVillage, ed. C. Ess and F. Sudweeks. Albany: SUNY Press.




10/10

cartographicathe international journal for geographic information and geovisualization

women and gis

Documents