SDI Convergence - Nederlandse Commissie voor Geodesie - KNAW

Questions of SDI are strongly integrated with development of society itself. So, the
question of whether we now are entering a new period in the context of SDI depends
on how society will evolve. Describing it in terms used by the analysts ‘Paradigmmaklarna’
(http://www.paradigmmaklarna.com, see Table 1) would mean the following. The
dominating metaphor in society today is ‘knowledge’ but according to them it will soon
change to ‘understanding’. The metaphor for the earlier society (1850 and onwards)
could be named ’energy’. Some key words for these different paradigms further clarify
it.
234
Table 1: Paradigms and key words.
Energy Knowledge Understanding
Muscles Brain Communication
Technique Education Network
Resources Patent Concept
Stationary Long termed Short termed and iterative
Generalist Specialist Complex
Materialist Functionalist Ruled by values
Collective Individual Context
Although all predictions about the future are largely speculation they can give a valuable
indication. If this prediction is correct, this change is clearly in favour of SDI and
cooperation. The words under the heading ‘Understanding’ are familiar to those used
in connection with SDI and cooperation. This can be an indication that cooperation
which has received more attention during the second period than in the first will be
even more important as a concept in the future.
However, many of the ‘new’ non-technical questions are discussed and explored solely
within the ‘SDI community’ and to a lesser extent in contact with other fields of research
and development. For instance, the SDI community does not necessarily have
the best experts on organisational issues and should, therefore, seek help in promoting
cooperation. There is at least one interesting study in this context. Koerten (2007) analysed
literature about GIS and SDI using organising metaphors. He concludes that the
literature in this field is dispersed and lacks clear focus. Koerten relates to paradigms
and metaphors in organising theory. He sees the need for a shift from the dominating
‘functionalist paradigm’ to the ‘interpretationist paradigm’ which represents revolutionary
science and a shift from the objective realm to a subjective realm. He welcomes
encounters with the interpretationist paradigm. He states that what is considered as a
revolutionary paradigm for GIS and SDI is already orthodox in organisational science.
He concludes that we need more knowledge about organising, interorganisational networks
and cooperation strategies. This, he states, calls for unorthodox researchers,
willing to use theories that focus on what goes on in people’s minds rather than focusing
on organisational structures.
Koertens study seems to support and strengthen the indication above that cooperation
will be of more importance in the field of SDI. It also gives a clear hint that new ways of
doing research are essential and that the ‘SDI community’ should cooperate better with
other fields, for instance organisational research.