ONTENTS - URISA...degree programs (e.g., the Bachelor of Science degree in GIScience offered by Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi). Similarly, as use of the technology became more

Which means our global team of GIS professionals can add time to your day. More time to keep your project running on schedule. More time to ensure your project is done right the first time. With Genesys International, you can be assured that your photogrammetry, image processing, and GIS data conversion needs will be met on time... every time. And time is money.

Denver · White Plains · Pleasanton · London · Bangalore · Mumbai · Pune

igenesys.com

Volume 15 • Number 1 • 2003

Journal of the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association

CONTENTS

REFEREED

4 Introduction to the Special Issue on GIS EducationKaren K. Kemp and Lyna Wiggins

7 On Accreditation and the Peer Review of Education in Geographic Information Systems and ScienceDavid DiBiase

15 The Significance of Public Safety for GIS Professional Licensing and CertificationFrancis J. Harvey

21 Building the Geospatial WorkforceCyndi H. Gaudet, Heather M. Annulis, and Jon C. Carr

31 Environmental Sustainability Through GIS: An Online E-Seminar for Higher EducationRyan Kelsey and Mark Becker

37 Framework and Strategies for Integrating Metadata Concepts with Geographic Information Science CurriculaMargo E. Berendsen, Jeffrey D. Hamerlinck, and Lynda Wayne

47 Update on the UCGIS Model Curricula ProjectPrepared by Karen K. Kemp on behalf of the UCGIS Model Curricula Task Force

51 Certification and Ethics in the GIS ProfessionWilliam E. Huxhold and William J. Craig

On the CoverAccreditation, certification, and the GIS curricula are only three of the many topics included in this Special Education Issue of the URISA Journal. The disciplines of GIS and GIScience are preparing the students of today for positions within an often ill-defined profession. This issue is intended to increase the level of communication and understanding between academics and professionals. Bridging this gap will help to further define the profession and satisfy its educational needs. The University Con-sortium of Geographic Information Science (UCGIS) and URISA have cooperated in producing this informative issue that concentrates on topics of special interest to both URISA and UCGIS members. This joint effort offers fresh insight into some of the salient issues facing the GIS professional community today. The issue also features draft copies of the GISCI Certification Program and the URISA Code of Ethics. This marks the first time these documents have been published in print.

2 URISA Journal • Vol. 15, No. 1 • 2003 URISA Journal • Vol. 15, No. 1 • 2003 3

Journal

EDITORIAL OFFICE: Urban and Regional Information Systems Association, 1460 Renaissance Drive, Suite 305, Park Ridge, Illinois 60068-1348; Voice (847) 824-6300; Fax (847) 824-6363; E-mail [email protected].

SUBMISSIONS: This publication accepts from authors an exclusive right of first publication to their article plus an accompanying grant of non-exclusive full rights. The publisher requires that full credit for first publication in the URISA Journal is provided in any subsequent electronic or print publications. For more information, the “Manuscript Submission Guidelines for Refereed Articles” is available on our website, www.urisa.org, or by calling (847) 824-6300.

SUBSCRIPTION AND ADVERTISING: All correspondence about advertising, subscriptions, and URISA memberships should be directed to: Urban and Regional Information Systems Association, 1460 Renaissance Dr., Suite 305, Park Ridge, Illinois, 60068-1348; Voice (847) 824-6300; Fax (847) 824-6363; E-mail [email protected].

URISA Journal is published four times a year by the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association.

© 2003 by the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by permission of the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association.

Educational programs planned and presented by URISA provide attendees with relevant and rewarding continuing education experience. How-ever, neither the content (whether written or oral) of any course, seminar, or other presentation, nor the use of a specific product in conjunction therewith, nor the exhibition of any materials by any party coincident with the educational event, should be construed as indicating endorsement or approval of the views presented, the products used, or the materials exhibited by URISA, or by its committees, Special Interest Groups, Chapters, or other commissions.

SUBSCRIPTION RATE: One year: $295 business, libraries, government agencies, and public institutions. Individuals interested in subscriptions should contact URISA for membership information.

US ISSN 1045-8077

Publisher: Urban and Regional Information Systems Association

Editor-in-Chief: Harlan Onsrud

Journal Coordinator: Scott A. Grams

Electronic Journal: http://www.urisa.org/journal.htm

2 URISA Journal • Vol. 15, No. 1 • 2003 URISA Journal • Vol. 15, No. 1 • 2003 3

URISA Journal Editor

Editor-in-ChiefHarlan Onsrud, Spatial Information Science and Engineering, University of Maine

Thematic Editors

Editor-Urban and Regional Information Science

Lewis Hopkins, Department of Planning, University of Illinois-Champaign/Urbana

Editor-Applications ResearchLyna Wiggins, Department of Planning, Rutgers University

Editor-Social, Organizational, Legal, and Economic Sciences

Ian Masser, Department of Urban Planning and Management, ITC (Netherlands)

Editor-Geographic Information ScienceMichael Goodchild, Department of Geography, University of California-Santa Barbara

Editor-Information and Media SciencesMichael Shiffer, Department of Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Editor-Spatial Data Acquisition and Integration

Gary Hunter, Department of Geomatics, University of Melbourne (Australia)

Editor-Geography, Cartography, and Cognitive Science

David Mark, Department of Geography, SUNY-Buffalo

Editor-EducationKaren Kemp, Department of Geography, University of California-Berkeley

Section Editors

Software Review Editor Jay Lee, Department of Geography, Kent State University

Book Review EditorRebecca Somers, Somers-St. Clair

Literature Review EditorZorica Nedovic, Department of Urban and Regional Planning,University of Illinois-Champaign/Urbana

Article Review Board

Peggy Agouris, Department of Spatial Information Science and Engineering, University of Maine

Michael Batty, Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, University College London (United Kingdom)

Kate Beard, Department of Spatial Information Science and Engineering, University of Maine

Yvan Bédard, Centre for Research in Geomatics, Laval University (Canada)

Barbara P. Buttenfield, Department of Geography, University of Colorado

Keith C. Clarke, Department of Geography, University of California-Santa Barbara

David Coleman, Department of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering, University of New Brunswick (Canada)

David J. Cowen, Department of Geography, University of South Carolina

Massimo Craglia, Department of Town & Regional Planning, University of Sheffield (United Kingdom)

William J. Craig, Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota

Robert G. Cromley, Department of Geography, University of Connecticut

Kenneth J. Dueker, Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State University

Geoffrey Dutton, Spatial Effects

Max J. Egenhofer, Department of Spatial Information Science and Engineering, University of Maine

Manfred Ehlers, Geoinformatics and Institute for Environmental Sciences, University of Vechta (Germany)

Manfred M. Fischer, Economics, Geography & Geoinformatics, Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration (Austria)

Myke Gluck, School of Information Studies and Geography, Florida State University

Michael Gould, Department of Science, Experimentales Universitat (Spain)

Daniel A. Griffith, Department of Geography, Syracuse University

Francis J. Harvey, Department of Geography, University of Minnesota

Kingsley E. Haynes, Public Policy and Geography, George Mason University

Eric J. Heikkila, School of Policy, Planning, and Development, University of Southern California

Stephen C. Hirtle, Department of Information Science and Telecommunications, University of Pittsburgh

Dr. Gary Jeffress, Department of Geographic

Information Science, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi

Richard E. Klosterman, Department of Geography and Planning, University of Akron

Robert Laurini, Claude Bernard University of Lyon (France)

Thomas M. Lillesand, Environmental Remote Sensing Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Paul Longley, Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, University College, London (United Kingdom)

Xavier R. Lopez, Oracle Corporation

David Maguire, Environmental Systems Research Institute

John McLaughlin, Research and International Cooperation, University of New Brunswick (Canada)

Harvey J. Miller, Department of Geography, University of Utah

Joel L. Morrison, Center for Mapping, Ohio State University

Atsuyuki Okabe, Department of Urban Engineering, University of Tokyo (Japan)

Jeffrey K. Pinto, School of Business, Penn State Erie

Gerard Rushton, Department of Geography, University of Iowa

Jie Shan, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University

Bruce D. Spear, Federal Highway Administration

Jonathan Sperling, Policy Development & Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

David J. Unwin, School of Geography, Birkbeck College, London (United Kingdom)

Stephen J. Ventura, Environmental Studies and Soil Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Nancy von Meyer, Fairview Industries

Barry Wellar, Department of Geography, University of Ottawa (Canada)

Michael F. Worboys, Department of Computer Science, Keele University (United Kingdom)

Benjamin Zhan, Department of Geography, Southwest Texas State University

EDITORS AND REVIEW BOARD

4 URISA Journal • Vol. 15, No. 1 • 2003 URISA Journal • Forward 5

Introduction to the Special Issue on GIS Education

Karen K. Kemp and Lyna Wiggins, Co-Editors

How we should learn and teach about geographic information sys-tems (GIS) and science (GIScience) has been a topic of discussion among academics for well over 30 years. In the same span of time, a still ill-defined profession has emerged within those who practice the application of this technology. Given the traditional lack of communication between academics and professionals, bridging the gap between the academic view of what should be learned and the professional view of what skills and knowledge are needed continues to be a challenge. This special issue on GIS education brings together reports on a number of current efforts aimed at defining the profes-sion and satisfying its educational needs.

This issue of the URISA Journal marks a second publication collaboration between the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (URISA) and the University Consortium for Geographic Information Science (UCGIS). UCGIS was founded in 1994 with a mission of serving as an effective, unified voice for the geographic information science research community; fostering multidisciplinary research and education; and promoting the informed and responsible use of geographic information science and geographic analysis for the benefit of society (see www.ucgis.org). Membership in UCGIS is conferred at the institutional level rather than the individual level and now includes 62 universities or university consortia, 4 professional organizations, and 10 affiliate members.

The first collaboration between URISA and UCGIS produced a special issue of the URISA Journal (Spring 2000) that focused on GIS application areas as motivators for pioneering GIScience research. In that issue, challenging and unresolved issues arising from application areas important to URISA members (crime analysis, emergency management, public health, transportation, water resources, and urban and regional planning) were examined as potential research opportunities for UCGIS members and other researchers in the larger GIScience community. This type of partner-ship between URISA professionals and UCGIS academics benefits both groups. Research motivated by real needs develops new methods and techniques relevant to practical applications that later diffuse into professional practice.

In this second special issue, we focus on education as another area of partnership between the professional and academic communities. Professionals have much to contribute to the design of both tradi-tional academic programs and continuing education opportunities, and academic programs benefit by responding to the user community. Likewise, given the rapidly evolving technologies, professionals need to know how to take advantage of various education opportunities and to become informed consumers of educational products.

GIS education began in the 1970s, largely as the preserve of graduate programs in very specialized universities (perhaps most famously in the United States, the Graphics Lab at Harvard Uni-

versity). As the algorithmic and software foundations of the technol-ogy advanced, GIS education gradually became more formalized as undergraduate courses and now, in some cases, as full university degree programs (e.g., the Bachelor of Science degree in GIScience offered by Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi). Similarly, as use of the technology became more widespread, the need for professional and continuing education was recognized and individual courses and certificate programs emerged in University extension programs. A full spectrum of GIS education opportunities now exist – GIS is now even being taught at the pre-school level!

While much of the early design of GIS education was motivated by university academics, the emergence of the GIS profession has provided impetus to the need to build education opportunities that truly reflect the demands of the employment market. The articles and reports in this issue explore this circumstance from several dif-ferent perspectives. These include: the need to identify the full set of competencies, knowledge, and skills required by professionals in the workplace (through efforts to define necessary competencies and appropriate university curricula); the appropriate design of educa-tion programs and exploration of emerging delivery mechanisms (designing curriculum content and providing distance learning opportunities); and the question of quality control among both professionals and educational opportunities (through certification and accreditation).

To set the context for the formal articles, this issue begins with two brief reports on significant initiatives of UCGIS and URISA that are responding to these workplace needs. The first report provides an update on the URISA Professional Certification initiative and the second on the UCGIS Model Curricula project.

Developing the procedures and organizational infrastructure for the certification of GIS Professionals is an important and very active URISA initiative. A vote by the Board of Directors taken in October 2001 to support the initiative recognized the efforts of the large URISA Certification Committee, which has been slowly developing the foundations for professional certification in GIS for more than 5 years.

The Certification Committee is a mix of private and public sector GIS professionals and academics. They have been laboring over a very controversial proposal. The road to consensus among Committee members has sometimes been difficult and reflects the differing views of professionals and academics. During the past year, the Committee has made available for public comment a number of evolving versions of the proposal (see the URISA web site for more information and to view the Guestbook, which is a record of comments received). Community participants have not been shy in submitting their views to the Guestbook. Widespread and sometimes acrimonious comment of these versions has lead to significant revi-

fmultid.html

fmultid.html

http://www.ucgis.org

4 URISA Journal • Vol. 15, No. 1 • 2003 URISA Journal • Forward 5

sions. The current version represents the best efforts of the Committee to account for the wide range of concerns noted, and it is now ready for a pilot program which will be undertaken in 2003.

While intended to recognize the qualifications of GIS profes-sionals, rather then casual GIS users, the proposed process is based on a self-documented portfolio and a point system that assigns points for education, experience, and contributions to the profession. No examination is proposed due to the diversity of the field and the dif-ficulty of defining a single suitable examination. In the first report in this issue, William Huxhold, Chair of the URISA Certification Committee and former President of both URISA and UCGIS, sum-marizes the status of this certification initiative.

A necessary component of professional certification is a Code of Ethics. Largely the result of untiring effort by William Craig, also a former President of both URISA and UCGIS, a GIS Professional Code of Ethics has been prepared by the URISA Certification Com-mittee. As a result, professionals seeking URISA certification will be required to study and pledge to adopt the Code in their professional endeavors. The Code includes ethical standards that are both general (relevant to any professional) and specific (of particular relevance to the practice of GIS professionals). Craig summarizes the Committee process and the proposed Code in the first report.

Academic members of the URISA Certification Committee, including the two editors of this issue, found many of the Guestbook comments about the relative value of traditional education versus the value of professional experience to be humbling. Many GIS professionals expressed skepticism about the relevance of traditional education, suggesting that academics have a distorted view of what is really important in practice. The efforts of the UCGIS to address some of these recognized deficiencies in traditional GIS education are the focus of the second report in this issue.

Over the past several years, the UCGIS Model Curricula Task Force has been working to develop a foundation for the design of un-dergraduate degree programs in Geographic Information Science and Technology (GI S&T). Recognizing that students following GI S&T undergraduate programs have many different objectives and goals, a curriculum designed from the Model Curricula framework would be built from a selection of hierarchically organized knowledge areas, units, and topics, and associated cross-cutting themes. Currently, the Task Force effort is focused on defining this Body of Knowledge for GI S&T. Karen Kemp, a Task Force member, a past Board member of UCGIS, and the Education Editor of the URISA Journal, reports on progress on this project on behalf of the Task Force.

Within the context of these active and dynamic URISA and UCGIS efforts, the regular articles in this issue represent a sampling of associated efforts and ideas flourishing in the community. Each article exemplifies a different response to the tension between the academic and the professional views of what GIS professionals need to know and how they should learn it.

The first regular article in this issue presents a very different approach to defining what GIS professionals need to know from that being used by UCGIS. Working from a workforce development research model, Cyndi Gaudet and Heather Annulis from the Geo-spatial Workforce Development Center at the University of Southern

Mississippi have undertaken a rapid-turnaround NASA-sponsored study to identify the roles and necessary competencies needed in the geospatial technology workforce. Competencies are the success factors for excellent performance within a given role. A combination of roles make up the tasks performed by a single worker. The research design used a combination of focus groups of members of the geospatial community and extended interviews with role experts.

The resulting Geospatial Technology Competency Model identifies 12 distinct work roles (e.g., applications development, marketing, and data management) and 39 competencies (e.g., car-tography, creative thinking, conflict management, and geospatial data processing tools). This Competency Model is defined with a much broader brush than the UCGIS Body of Knowledge. Whereas the UCGIS Body of Knowledge seeks to identify those areas of knowl-edge that are unique or fundamental to the GI S&T domain, this Competency Model seeks to identify the full range of competencies needed by a working professional and thus encompasses 29 generic business, technical, analytical and interpersonal competencies that are independent of the GIS domain. The importance of this research is not what it found out about GIS knowledge requirements – the incompleteness of which is acknowledged by the authors – but rather what it found out about the set of non-GIS-related professional com-petencies needed.

Taking yet another approach to defining what a GIS profes-sional needs to know, the next article in the issue considers in detail some of the issues involved in determining how one particular topic – metadata, one of the cross-cutting themes in the UCGIS Body of Knowledge – should be placed within academic programs. Here, Margo Berendsen and Jeff Hamerlinck (University of Wyoming) and Linda Wayne (principal of GeoMaxim and Metadata Educa-tion Coordinator for the Federal Geographic Data Committee) take a careful look at how metadata education can and should be diffused throughout an entire curriculum. Metadata has emerged as an important component of GIS practice. The authors argue that the traditional short course, 1-day training seminar, or on-the-job training are not sufficient for GIS professionals to appreciate that metadata should not be viewed “merely as a content standard or software application, but rather as a philosophy of how to approach information management and decision-making tasks.” The authors outline a pedagogic framework that shows how metadata concepts might be integrated into a broad range of components in a GIS curriculum.

Seen as a set, these three projects – the UCGIS Model Cur-ricula, the Geospatial Competency Model, and the University of Wyoming project to define strategies for integrating metadata into a curriculum – illustrate the complexity and difficulty of completely specifying what needs to be taught. While the Geospatial Workforce Development Center project did a commendable job of highlighting the need for generic skills in the competency set of GIS professionals, a fully elaborated GIS curriculum will need serious attention to the GI S&T Body of Knowledge being specified by UCGIS. As well, in any full implementation of a curriculum, the question of how important cross-cutting themes such as metadata, scale, and uncertainty can be consistently and deeply incorporated must be considered.

6 URISA Journal • Vol. 15, No. 1 • 2003 URISA Journal • DiBiase 7

Having explored the question, however inconclusively, of what GIS professionals need to know, we next turn to consideration of themes related to the URISA Professional Certification initiative reported earlier in this issue. As noted, certification is a highly contentious topic. If GIS professional certification becomes a real-ity, any number of related issues assume sudden importance. Here we consider two of these. David DiBiase explores the specter of accreditation – if certification depends upon recognition of educa-tional credentials, how do we assess the quality and comparability of various education opportunities? Francis Harvey then reflects upon how professional certification, once implemented, may lead the profession toward licensing.

In the article by David DiBiase of Pennsylvania State Univer-sity, a member of the URISA Certification Committee, it is noted that certification is a process of assuring that individuals have the required knowledge and skills that comprise “competency” in a profession. However, while certification can be granted by a pro-fessional organization (e.g., URISA), academic institutions and private sector organizations also confer “certificates.” It is this second use of the word certification that raises concern. Many academic institutions now offer GIS Certificates, taught both within regular academic programs and within continuing education programs, and in regular classrooms or via distance learning. There is a wide but uncertain variation in the quantity and quality of education provided across these institutions. Thus, the best current advice for professionals seeking GIS education is “buyer beware.”

There are a number of ways that higher education is held ac-countable for the quality of their courses and programs. The most common way is through “accreditation” of programs and depart-ments. The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) may be familiar to URISA members. DiBiase describes several processes of accreditation used by professions. Geography departments, the source of the majority of GIS courses in universi-ties, have not historically taken part in an accreditation process and are likely to be resistant to such a change. As an alternative, DiBiase makes a strong and compelling argument for a “peer review” process for both courses and programs. The accreditation process would be a voluntary one that emphasizes self-evaluation and peer review through a new journal, likely on-line. Such a process would help inform consumers of GIS education about the quality of courses and programs, improve the quality of courses through evaluation and peer review, and provide academics with the reward of a peer-reviewed publication arising from their efforts to be good teachers that may be equivalent to the academic reward provided by the publication of a research paper.

Just as there is considerable variation in the meaning and value of a certificate, there is some confusion about the distinction be-tween licensing and certification. It is this apparent confusion that led Francis Harvey from the University of Minnesota to focus on a consideration of the relevance of public safety concerns – the motivation for licensing – to GIS certification. Legally, certification is the recognition by an awarding organization that a person has met specified requirements, while licensing is an exercise of police power that empowers the government to restrict an individual’s

freedom in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare. This article reviews two case studies of licensing that emphasize the political, philosophical, and scientific dimensions of licensing and certification. Through this review, Harvey comes to the ques-tion, “is there a test that assures GIS certification fulfills public safety concerns?” If this question cannot be affirmatively answered, Harvey argues, then certainly licensing, and perhaps certification for GIS professionals, is premature. Despite the answer, Harvey suggests that the relevance of public safety issues to the practice of GIS implies that consideration of this topic should immediately become incorporated into GIS curricula preparing individuals for future professional careers.

The final article in this issue touches on the very large ques-tion of how we should teach GIS. In 1997, the UCGIS developed a set of Education Challenges for the GIScience community. One of these gave rise to the Model Curricula Project reported earlier. Another of these challenges was entitled “Emerging Technologies for Delivering GIS Education.” Over the next few years, discussions around this topic led to elaboration of a White Paper on “Chal-lenges and Opportunities in Distance Education for Geographic Information Science” (available on-line at http://dusk.geo.orst.edu/disted/). While distance education is in no way unique to GIS, the opportunity it provides both to share our responsibilities for keeping course materials as current as possible in light of rapidly evolving technologies and to incorporate our technologies into other learning experiences must be explored. The final article illustrates this latter theme.

In their article on a recent project to teach environmental sustainability through an on-line seminar, Ryan Kelsey and Mark Becker of Columbia University describe an innovative approach to using GIS as a core technology for distance learning. As the authors point out, many courses offered via distance learning are sequential in design – students complete one module before moving onto the next, often progressing from basic knowledge to more specific learning objectives. The on-line seminar described in their article takes a different approach. Nine faculty from Columbia University present nine different perspectives on the issue of environmental sustainability. Students (both degree students and outside adult learners) explore these perspectives through a set of modules ar-ranged in a hub-and-spoke style, rather than in a set sequence. Aiding them in this loosely structured exploration of the topic is an interactive GIS application used to access and explore a dataset of international environmental indicators.

By ending the issue with an article exploring GIS for educa-tion rather than GIS education itself, a kind of closure is achieved. As we grow in our understanding of the fundamental educational needs of GIS professionals through our efforts at certification and defining the core body of knowledge contained within the domain, we will be better able to articulate what GIS itself can bring to the education experience in general. Just as the Geospatial Workforce Development Center sees technical writing and conflict manage-ment as core skills for GIS professionals, perhaps others will begin to recognize the conceptualization of space and exploratory spatial data analysis as generic competencies in their fields.

http://dusk.geo.orst.edu/disted/

http://dusk.geo.orst.edu/disted/


IntroductionColleges and universities contribute to the advancement of geo-graphic information systems (GISs) and science through research, education, and service. It goes without saying that the value of these contributions depends on their quality. Formal quality assurance mechanisms are well established in academic research, but less so in education. The primary mechanism for awarding public and private research funds, and for publishing research findings, is peer review. Readers can be confident that expert reviewers have evalu-ated the arguments and evidence presented in articles published in scholarly periodicals such as the URISA Journal. The textbooks that many educators advise their students to purchase are also subject to rigorous peer review. Textbooks often play only supporting roles in GIS-related courses, however. And in most cases, prospective students and their employers cannot be certain that the courses themselves, or the certificate and degree programs of which they are a part, have been subjected to rigorous scrutiny.

“Just as the period starting in 1945 led to the extraordinary growth in master’s degree programs,” LaPidus (2000:9) observes, “so the period we are in now, characterized not only by socioeconomic change but also by technological revolution, is leading to growth in certificate and other non-degree programs [in U.S. academic institu-tions].” The so-called “certificates phenomenon” (Marchese 1999) is evident in many information technology fields, including GIS.

In addition to the GIS certificate programs offered by academic institutions and private businesses, two professional organizations—the American Society for Remote Sensing and Photogrammetric Engineering (ASPRS) and the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (URISA)—have developed or are in the process of developing their own GIS certification procedures. By definition, certification seeks to assure the competency of individual practi-tioners. A related concern, which certification does not directly address, is the effectiveness of educational courses and programs that claim to help individuals develop the competencies they need to become qualified GIS professionals. The formal process of evaluat-

On Accreditation and the Peer Review of Education in Geographic Information Systems and Science

David DiBiase

Abstract: This article considers the need for a formal quality assurance mechanism for college-level education in geographic information systems and science. A voluntary accreditation process that emphasizes self evaluation and peer review of individual GIS-related courses is proposed. To attract and retain voluntary participation, accreditation must provide meaningful benefits to all stakeholders, including prospective students and employers, educational institutions and departments, and course instructors. Fortunately, it is possible to tailor accreditation programs to the goals and constraints of particular communities of practice. In the context of the geographic information system community, it may be most productive to conceive of accreditation as a form of peer-reviewed publication analogous to the established process used to evaluate the quality of academic research. By publishing portfolios of accredited courses and programs, accreditation has the potential to foster and recognize faculty excellence and to enable prospective students and employers to identify courses and programs that meet their needs.

ing the qualifications and effectiveness of educational programs and institutions is called accreditation. Unlike planning, engineering, and teacher education, no accreditation process focuses specifically upon geography or many of the other disciplines that offer GIS-related courses and certificate and degree programs.

While much has been written about GIS certification, accredi-tation has received little attention within the GIS community. The purpose of this article is to explain what accreditation is and to sug-gest how it might contribute to geographic information systems and science education. Specifically, the article proposes that accreditation be implemented as a freely available online publication to which individual GIS-related courses as well as entire degree and certificate programs are voluntarily submitted for peer review and in which the portfolios of accredited courses and programs are published. The article begins by considering the status of academic and professional certification, whose attendant controversies have illuminated the in-adequacy of quality control in GIS-related education.

Academic Certification ProgramsCertification refers to the process of assuring that individuals possess the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that constitute competence in a profession, in the judgment of some authority. Professional organizations, academic institutions, and private businesses all confer certificates. In the GIS profession, academic and industry certification are most common. Certification has received increasing attention in recent years because of the grow-ing number of GIS certification programs offered by colleges and universities. Michael Phoenix, the former Environmental System Research Institute (ESRI) Higher Education Coordina-tor, recently estimated that there are more than 200 academic GIS certification programs in the United States alone (Phoenix 2000). At last count, ESRI’s online database of academic GIS programs lists 162 programs that claim to offer GIS certificates, of which 116 are located in the U.S (Environmental System Research Institute 2002).


As Thomas Wikle (1998) pointed out, GIS certification programs vary widely in scope, focus, and quality (although since educational effectiveness is rarely assessed formally in higher educa-tion, this last point can only be assumed). The diversity of academic programs is desirable in one sense, but undesirable in another. It is desirable insofar as it accurately reflects and responds to the diversity of professional practice. GIS is used in many different fields for many different purposes, each setting requiring somewhat different knowledge and skills. On the other hand, the diversity of programs also confuses students and employers who seek guidance on pro-fessional development strategies and hiring criteria. Bill Huxhold speaks for many when he complains that “Today anybody can teach anything and call it GIS education.…Who knows whether the skills being taught in these programs are needed to become a GIS professional?” (Huxhold 2000:25).

The proliferation of academic certificate programs is not unique to GIS, of course. The U.S. Department of Education lists more than 2000 post-baccalaureate certificate programs (that is, programs designed to serve individuals who previously earned bachelors degrees) serving an estimated potential market of 40 to 45 million people in the U.S. alone (Irby 1999). A recent survey of 1288 certificate programs offered by 77 U.S. colleges and universi-ties suggests that the disciplines that account for the largest shares of all certificate programs include business, information science, and health sciences (Patterson 2000). Given the rapid pace of social and technological change associated with what some describe as an increasingly global knowledge economy, its not surprising that “postbaccalaureate certificate programs constitute one of the fast-est-growing areas in higher education” (LaPidus 2000:6).

Academic departments that wish to establish certification programs are typically not bound by the same rules that govern graduate and undergraduate degree programs. The result, as Kohl and LaPidus (2000:234) observe, is that “certificates represent a completely unregulated segment of higher education.” Ted Marchese (1999:4), long-time vice president of the American Association for Higher Education and editor of Change magazine, argues that “the certificates phenomenon seems almost entirely good news,” insofar as it represents the ability of departments to design and implement certification programs relatively quickly in response to the needs of target markets, sometimes in collabora-tion with industry partners. The trouble with the phenomenon, Marchese (1999:4) admits, is that “…developments in the post-secondary marketplace are quickly outrunning the capacity of existing quality assurance mechanisms to assure fair practice.” This “can make it difficult for students and employers to assess the value of these programs” (LaPidus 2000:7). Caveat emptor is thus the best advice for consumers. And as the World Wide Web and a new class of “course management systems” software enable asynchronous delivery of entire GIS certificate and even degree programs online, the choices confronting students are no longer limited to programs offered locally. Unfortunately, there is not yet a “buyer’s guide” to GIS education to help prospective students and employers make informed decisions about which programs are most likely to meet their needs.

Professional Certification ProgramsA frequently suggested strategy for influencing the quality of GIS education is for a professional organization to accept responsibility for evaluating and certifying the technical competence and ethical performance of individual GIS practitioners (Obermeyer 2000). Unlike the rapid growth of academic certification programs, and of certification programs administered by professional organiza-tions in other fields, however, certification by professional orga-nizations in the GIS community has not yet caught on.

Many professional organizations offer certification programs, of course. The second edition of The Guide to National Certifica-tion Programs (Barnhart 1997) describes 558 unique professional certifications administered by U.S. professional organizations. America’s Learning Exchange, a searchable online database spon-sored by the U.S. Department of Labor, lists 2525 professional programs (U.S. Department of Labor 2001) that certify expertise in a wide range of fields from accounting (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants), to teaching (National Board for Professional Teaching Standards), to planning (American Institute of Certified Planners), and even to poetry therapy (National As-sociation for Poetry Therapy). Surprisingly, keyword searches on “GIS” and “geographic information systems” yield no matches. The keyword “map” produces three relevant matches, however: the Cadastral Mapping Specialist certificate administered by the International Association of Assessing Officers, and the Certified Mapping Scientist programs for GIS/LIS and Remote Sensing, which are administered by the ASPRS.

The Certified Mapping Scientist GIS/LIS program of the ASPRS is most relevant to the GIS community. Applicants are expected to possess three years of professional experience (toward which relevant academic degrees may be counted) and four letters of recommendation. They are also required to declare compliance with a code of ethics and pass a proctored, four-hour examination. The examination contains questions related to photogrammetry, remote sensing, ethical conduct, standards, as well as GIS/LIS. Certificates are valid for life, although optional re-certification is available (American Society for Remote Sensing and Photogram-metric Engineering 2000). The impact of the ASPRS GIS/LIS cer-tification program has been modest, however; through June 2000, fewer than 60 individuals had earned certificates (Renslow 2000). As Nancy Obermeyer (1993:72) points out, “If a GIS certification process does not gain universal (or near-universal) support, it will be ineffective as a tool to assure the quality of GIS practitioners.”

It is too early to count out professional certification in GIS, however. At the 2001 Annual Conference in Long Beach, Cali-fornia, the URISA Board unanimously approved an implementa-tion schedule for a new certification program proposed by the Association’s GIS Certification Committee. The proposal calls for the creation of an independent organization that will certify and re-certify applicants who earn a requisite number of “achieve-ment points.” Point values are defined for achievements related to education, experience, and contributions to the profession. No

http://www.alx.org/cert_report.asp?cert_id=1327&searchby=keyword&usertype=

http://www.alx.org/cert_report.asp?cert_id=1327&searchby=keyword&usertype=


examination is planned. Interestingly, in the section of the first draft document in which initial point values for achievement categories were proposed (Urban and Regional Information Systems Asso-ciation Certification Committee 2001), the heading “Professional Development Courses” (including certificate programs) included the parenthetical question “how accredited”? It seems clear that even if the new URISA certification program is successful in gaining the near-universal support that Obermeyer says is required, the need to accredit academic programs, especially academic certification programs, will remain.

AccreditationAccreditation has been called “the most fully developed institution-alization of the idea of accountability in higher education” (van Vught 1994, cited in Lubinescu et al. 2001:6). Hamm (1997:3) characterizes it as a “conformity assessment process” involving the development of educational standards, self evaluation, and peer review of the extents to which applicant organizations conform to standards, and subsequent granting or withholding of accreditation by recognized, independent authorities. The earliest accreditation efforts in the United States included a rating of 150 medical schools commissioned by the American Medical Association Council on Medical Education and published in 1910. At approximately the same time, the North Central Association of Colleges and Second-ary Schools began evaluating colleges and published its first list of accredited institutions in 1913. Today, eight regional commissions administer accreditation programs in which most of the nearly 3600 degree-granting higher education institutions in the U.S. voluntarily participate (Hamm 1997, Cook 2001).

In addition to the accrediting bodies that vouch for entire institutions, other organizations accredit individual academic pro-grams. For example, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), a federation of 28 professional engineering a technical societies, accredits some 2300 educational programs in engineering, engineering technology and engineering-related disciplines at more than 500 U.S. colleges and universities, in 6-year renewal cycles (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology 2000). The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education accredits some 1300 degree programs offered by U.S. schools of education (Murray 2001). The Planning Ac-creditation Board, sponsored jointly by the American Institute of Certified Planners, the Association of Collegiate Schools of Plan-ning, and the American Planning Association, accredits graduate and undergraduate planning degree programs at some 68 North American institutions (Planning Accreditation Board, no year).

The accreditation process employed by the Planning Accredita-tion Board requires that applicant programs first demonstrate that they meet certain pre-conditions for accreditation review, including an emphasis on professional practice, a minimum of 2 years worth of required coursework, a minimum of 25 graduates, and the inclusion of the word “planning” in the title of the degree. Applicants who sat-isfy these and other pre-conditions become candidates for accredita-tion. Candidate programs submit exhaustive self-evaluations in which they document performance related to 11 criteria, including:

1) Goals and objectives that align with the program’s mission and with other accreditation criteria;

2) Relationships with the program’s department, school, college, and other relevant units within the institution that contribute to the advancement of the overall quality of the program and its goals and objectives;

3) Sufficient autonomy, suitable governance, and competent leadership within the candidate’s institution;

4) Curricula that are properly aligned with the program’s objectives;

5) Faculties that are adequately populated with qualified personnel;

6) Adequate attention to teaching, advising, and other student support services;

7) Research and scholarly activities that support the program’s mission, goals, and objectives;

8) Professional and public service that advances the competence and currency of faculty and students relative to evolving standards of practice;

9) Student bodies characterized by excellence and equity;10) Adequate organizational and physical resources; and11) Fair practices and policies, such as those concerned with

student grievances, non-discrimination and affirmative action program information, confidentiality of student records, and on-going monitoring and evaluation of administrative policies and procedures.

After it receives a candidate’s self-evaluation study, the Planning Accreditation Board appoints a site review team “consisting of a minimum of two planning academics and one planning practitioner from its approved list” to visit the program (Planning Accreditation Board 1994). The site review team’s report is then submitted to the program for comment, and to the Board for decision. Successful programs are accredited for periods of 5 years; after 3 years, the cycle begins again as the program prepares a new self-evaluation study.

Although most higher education institutions seek accredita-tion, many individual disciplines do not. No organization specifical-ly accredits degree or certificate programs offered by the 251 North American academic departments of geography, for instance, which account for the largest share (about one-third) of the GIS-related course offerings in higher education (Phoenix 2000). Although few departments of geography or related fields offer academic degrees in GIS per se, the relatively large and growing number of courses and certification programs in GIS offered by academic institutions and private businesses may justify the creation of a new accredit-ing body, or at least a new, specialized accreditation program to be administered by an established organization.

Hallmarks of Contemporary AccreditationAccreditation is time consuming and costly. Indeed, the arrival of a new accreditation cycle “is generally met with the same level of enthusiasm as the announcement of an upcoming Internal Revenue Service audit” (Hamm 1997:x). Unlike taxes and similar certainties, however, accreditation is voluntary. To have an impact


on the quality of GIS education, accreditation must attract and retain voluntary participation by a large proportion of education and training providers. To accomplish this, “the value of accredita-tion must be perceived by the applicant as a fair economic trade for the expense and work required to achieve and maintain ac-creditation” (Hamm 1997:72). Toward this end, those who design an accreditation plan for GIS education must recognize and avoid the pitfalls that have weakened similar efforts in other fields in the past. These pitfalls include systematic bias against smaller institu-tions, over-emphasis on conformity, and inadequate disclosure of results. As discussed in the following three sections, these pitfalls can be overcome by emphasizing performance-based evaluation criteria over resource-based criteria, by encouraging responsiveness and innovation, and by promoting the fullest possible disclosure of the data consumers need to make informed decisions.

Emphasizing PerformanceHistorically, external accreditation reviews tended to devote the most attention to the resources that institutions bring to bear on education, such as facilities, faculty credentials, and admissions policies. Resource-oriented accreditation plans are sometimes accused of privileging larger institutions, which tend to have the most resources. Real or perceived, bias against smaller insti-tutions is unacceptable in GIS education, given the vital roles played by community colleges and other 2-year institutions. Fortunately, trends favor more inclusive accreditation processes. Recognizing that “resources should not be a basis for depart-ment-level assessment of student learning” (Hatfield 2001:23), accrediting bodies like the Planning Accreditation Board now charge peer review teams to “interpret quality within the context of the program’s own aims and activities” (Lubinescu et al. 2001:8). Indeed, the Board’s Site Visit Manual (Planning Accreditation Board 1994) states that:

The single most important trend in accreditation is represented by its elevation from a process focusing on minimum criteria of adequacy, quantitative criteria, and input measures as indicators of meeting the criteria to a process highlighting criteria requiring adequacy but also encouraging excellence qualitative criteria involving more assessment and judgment output or performance-oriented measures.

While assessment of educational outcomes is hardly less time consuming than resource-based evaluation, the performance-based approach is less likely to disenfranchise smaller institutions and more likely to benefit students and employers.

Encouraging Responsiveness and Innovation Another critique leveled against accrediting bodies in the past is that they have tended to be “too rigid in the standard setting and review process” (Hamm 1997:31). Over-emphasizing conformity tends to discourage targeted and innovative approaches to curriculum design and instructional delivery, which in turn poses “a particular concern for many fields undergoing rapid technological change” (Hamm 1997:31). In the realm of GIS education, disincentives to innovation might result if accreditation processes over-emphasize conformity to standardized curricula, particularly if standards are not

frequently revised. After all, conformity says little about the extent to which students have achieved learning objectives (Murray 2001). Curriculum guidelines such as the National Center for Geographic Information & Analysis (NCGIA) Core Curriculum (Kemp and Goodchild 1991) and the Model Curricula currently being developed under the auspices of the University Consortium for Geographic Information Science (UCGIS) (Marble 1998) are clearly useful, but strict conformity with such guidelines should probably not be required for accreditation in a field as diverse as GIS.

Innovative instructional delivery strategies, such as those in-volving asynchronous learning mediated by the Internet, pose even greater challenges to accrediting bodies. Charles Cook, director of The Commission on Institutions of Higher Education of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges, acknowledges that “these new phenomena, unheard of 5 years ago, challenge the capacity of regional accreditation commissions to provide meaningful quality assurance” (Cook 2001:20). There are hopeful signs, however, that accrediting bodies recognize that “the emergence of new varieties of postbaccalaureate training and education underscores the need for regional accrediting associations to generate and advance standards and processes appropriate to a new age” (Crow 2000:145). Evidence of this recognition includes the recent publication of “Guidelines for the Evaluation of Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs” drafted by the eight U.S. regional accreditation commis-sions in cooperation with the Western Consortium for Education Telecommunications (2000). Program accreditors also recognize that organizational agility and responsiveness are characteristics as desir-able as conformity. As the Planning Accreditation Board observes in its Site Visit Manual, “the accreditation process is viewed as an opportunity to learn of innovative and unique practices occurring in the field” (Planning Accreditation Board 1994).

Promoting DisclosureThe tension between the desire of institutions and programs to maintain the confidentiality of evaluation data and the public’s desire to make informed choices poses a third challenge to effective accreditation. The diversity of professional practice in GIS, reflected in the diversity of education and training opportunities available, amplifies the public’s need for disclosure. Hamm (1997:123) observes that although “most accrediting review information is confidential and must be kept private to protect the rights of applicant organiza-tions…the long-term trend…is moving toward more disclosure.…” While it is useful to know whether or not a program is accredited, that knowledge alone will be insufficient if accreditation is successful in attracting participation from the majority of education providers. Prospective students and employers should also be able to compare curricula and learning objectives, student performance data, faculty qualifications, instructional delivery options, costs, and the value of degrees or certificates in the context of a professional certification program such as the one proposed by URISA. Although program promotional materials already tend to disclose some of these sorts of information, performance data are seldom included (if they are even collected), and those data that are available tend not to be reported in comparable forms. One solution to this dilemma may involve


portfolios in which accreditation candidates articulate goals, provide evidence of the ways in which goals are achieved, and reflect upon opportunities for improvement. The Urban Universities Portfolio Project (Ketcheson 2001:84) demonstrates how institutional port-folios can be used not only as self-evaluation instruments, but also “for communicating quality assurance and institutional improvement information to the public.”

Accreditation is necessarily burdensome. The extent to which most institutions and some disciplines voluntarily par-ticipate in accreditation attests to its value to providers and consumers alike. GIS education is not specifically accredited by any professional organization, however. Since GIS educa-tion is diffused among numerous disciplines, the majority of which do not participate in accreditation, it seems unlikely that existing accreditation bodies are well suited to serve the GIS community. The time may be right, however, to develop a new accreditation system tailored specifically to the needs of stakeholders in GIS education enterprise. Stakeholders, after all, “are the true judges of the process. They have the power and the ability to modify, change, or develop new accredita-tion programs that better meet the needs of the field and the concerns of the public” (Hamm 1997:145). The following outlines an innovative approach to accreditation intended not only to assure the quality of GIS education and training programs, but also to improve it in the process.

Accreditation As Peer-reviewed PublicationTo attract and retain motivated participants, accreditation must provide benefits to all stakeholders in the GIS education enterprise, including those who account for the demand for education as well as institutions and individuals who account for the supply.

To stakeholders on the demand side, including prospective students, employers, and society at large, accreditation is valuable as both a seal of approval and as a buyer’s guide. On the supply side, benefits accrue directly to administrators of programs and institutions, for whom accreditation provides a benchmark against which success can be gauged, as well as a useful marketing tool. Individual faculty members, the ones who design and teach GIS classes, may benefit only indirectly, however, and those who are unfamiliar with accreditation may perceive it as an unwelcome form of quasi-governmental regulation.

Accreditation is more likely to be effective in assuring qual-ity education if educators have an incentive to participate. To be viewed as a fair economic trade for the effort involved, ac-creditation should include recognition of instructors’ scholarly effort in designing and conducting successful courses. Ideally, course authors and instructors ought to benefit from successful teaching in ways that are comparable to the benefits they earn by producing successful research proposals and by publishing research reports in peer-reviewed publications. Such is not the case at most institutions at present, of course.

If, as accreditation expert Michael Hamm suggests, it is stake-holders’ prerogative to develop an accreditation plan that best suits

their needs, then it ought to be possible to conceive of accreditation in terms that educators already know and trust: that is, as peer-reviewed publication. Despite occasional second thoughts about its reliability as a mechanism for assuring scholarly merit (e.g., Berry 1995 and Goodstein 1995), peer review is a fixture of academic culture, and publication in peer-reviewed journals is the coin of the realm. In principle, the quality of a certificate or degree program in GIS, or of an individual course for that matter, is as amenable to peer review as the quality of a research project. By the same token, the self-evaluation documents that accreditation candidates prepare are analogous to manuscripts submitted to journals for review. And the granting of accreditation itself is analogous to the acceptance of an article for publication. While it is true that informal peer review takes place whenever an instructor asks a colleague’s advice about teaching, when faculty members meet to review departmental curricula, or when scholars from different institutions collaborate in projects such as the University Consortium for Geographic In-formation Science Model Curricula, the act of formalizing such ad hoc processes is likely to bolster their impact on educational quality, and thereby increase their value to stakeholders.

Accrediting Individual CoursesTo the extent that it is public, susceptible to critical review and evaluation, and accessible for exchange and use by colleagues in one’s field, teaching is a scholarly activity (Shulman 1998). The individual course is the basic unit of analysis in the scholarship of teaching and learning, since “it is within the course that knowledge of the field intersects with knowledge about particular students and their learning” (Hutchings 1998:14). In the same way that scholars assure the quality of research, it is possible to assess the quality of a course through self evaluation and peer review (Hutchings 1996a).

One instrument for teachers’ self-evaluation of their courses is the course portfolio. A course portfolio is a reflective collection of evidence that documents the goals, effectiveness, and ongoing de-velopment of a single academic course (Hutchings 1998). Pertinent evidence includes documentation of the design, implementation, and results of a course, including its syllabus, description of stu-dent activities, and examples of student work and feedback, bound together by the author’s reflective narrative. Most important, how-ever, is evidence of student achievement: “The heart of the course portfolio, its center of gravity, is evidence the teacher gathers about students’ learning and development (through the use of classroom assessment techniques, interviews with students, peer review of student work, and other strategies…)” (Hutchings 1998:14). Specifically, course portfolios can provide evidence that students have developed competencies that GIS professionals are expected to possess, such as the competencies outlined in a recent study com-missioned by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) National Workforce Development Education and Training Initiative (Gaudet et al. 2001). In general, course portfolios ought to enable reviewers to answer such questions as: Are measurable objectives for student learning defined? How well do the objectives align with the needs of the GIS

profession?


Is compelling evidence presented that the course is effective in helping students achieve its objectives?

One of the strengths of course portfolios is that they encourage educators to pay more attention to assessing student outcomes than they otherwise might. With this in mind, Malik (1996) suggests that the process of preparing and maintaining portfolios is ultimately more valuable than the accreditation credential itself.

Course portfolios need not be the only forms of evidence that reviewers consider. Although site visits are likely to be impractical, course reviewers might contact individual students by telephone or e-mail. For example, the Accreditation Council on Services for People with Disabilities evaluates the effectiveness of service providers who apply for accreditation through extensive interviews with samples of the clients they serve (Hamm 1997).

However they may be evaluated, there are several good reasons why individual courses should be accredited in addition to certificate and degree programs. For one thing, the point system in the proposed URISA certification scheme does as-sess value to individual courses as well as complete certificate and degree programs. Second, course accreditation has the potential to attract participation by GIS instructors who are not affiliated with degree or certificate programs. Instructors working in schools whose missions are primarily educational may have the greatest incentive to participate—a desirable counterbalance to the tendency of accreditation programs to privilege larger institutions. Perhaps most important, by rec-ognizing the scholarly work of individual instructors, course accreditation can provide an incentive to involve the individual course authors and instructors who have the greatest potential impact on the quality of GIS education. The quality of indi-vidual courses is, after all, a crucial element in the quality of certificate and degree programs.

Accrediting Certificate and Degree ProgramsThe main reason to accredit GIS education is the need to assure the quality of certificate and degree programs. Criteria for program self evaluation and on-site peer review might be similar to those used by the Planning Accreditation Board and kindred accredi-tation bodies. Portfolios may be useful instruments for program self-evaluation; they will certainly be useful for communicating programs’ qualifications to prospective students and their spon-sors. Whatever the instrument, however, self evaluation and peer review should emphasize performance—specifically, the extent to which students achieve program objectives. Applicants should be able to provide multiple measures of student achievement, including not only student grades and satisfaction surveys, but also some combination of program completion rates, professional certification rates, evaluations of program graduates by employers, rates of professional recognition and participation in professional activities, and rates of professional advanced study, among others. Although none of these measures alone proves that a program is effective, “taken together, they may converge and align and constitute an improved evidentiary base for the programs faculty’s

claim that the program’s graduates are competent” (Murray 2001:57). Many of the programs that may wish to participate in ac-creditation cannot currently collect and maintain such data. The absence of mechanisms needed to generate reliable student performance data will be one of the most challenging obstacles to accreditation. Without such evidence, however, accreditation may not be worth the trouble.

Publishing Portfolios of Accredited Courses and ProgramsIn this article it has been argued that, as the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology observes, “the diversity of educational programs in the United States is one strength of the American educational system” (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Tech-nology 2000). Accreditation offers the potential not only to assure the quality of programs and courses, but also to assist prospective students and their sponsors to find programs and courses tailored to their needs. It has also been argued in this article that to attract and sustain motivated participation by those who have the greatest impact on quality, it is essential that an accreditation plan for GIS education provide meaningful incentives to individual instructors. The strategy proposed to achieve these ends is to implement ac-creditation as a kind of peer-reviewed publication.

“Given the difficulty in standardizing certificate programmes,” Thomas Wikle (1998:502) suggests, “a more effective way to influ-ence the development of new certificate programs may be achieved by showcasing examples of successful programmes.” Specifically, accreditation might be implemented as a freely accessible online journal that publishes the edited portfolios of accredited courses and programs. The online journal (perhaps entitled GIS Education Review) should allow visitors to search for certificate and degree programs that match criteria they specify with key words. Search queries might operate on metadata including institution name, location, credentials granted (degree, certificate, credit, continuing education unit (CEU)), schedule (semesters, quarters, continuous enrollment), duration, tuition and fees, delivery approaches (on campus versus online, for instance), and other criteria. Search results could list names of relevant programs, linked to standardized “fact sheets” for each program. Fact sheets might be provided as soon as programs qualify as candidates for accreditation, and Fact sheets of accredited programs would be duly marked, and would contain links to the program portfolio, course portfolios, and reviews that provide the detailed information that visitors need to choose the program or programs that best suit their needs. A comparable publication (although not one involved in accreditation) is MER-LOT (Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Online Teaching), “an online community that allows visitors to search for learning materials, reviews, assignments, and people” in which contributions are peer-reviewed (Long 2001:7).

The GIS Education Review would need an editor and edito-rial board, like any other professional publication, and, like other accrediting bodies, it should be established as a free standing, separately incorporated entity (Hamm 1997). An executive direc-tor and a small staff likely would be needed to assist the editor in


appointing review teams, organizing site visits, analyzing reports, rendering decisions, and dealing with grievances, not to mention developing and maintaining a suitable Web presence. The execu-tive director should seek endorsements by, and financial support from, professional societies and industry partners, representatives of which might be invited to participate in a board of directors. The executive director should also coordinate with, and discuss eventual affiliation with, existing accreditation bodies, such as ABET. The entire staff would share responsibility for recruiting participants at professional conferences and through related publications.

ConclusionEducation theorist Lee Shulman (quoted in Hutchings 1996b:103) uses the term “consequential validity” to denote a method of assess-ment that “advances the quality of the very enterprise being evalu-ated.” A consequentially valid accreditation process would provide several benefits to stakeholders in GIS education. It would provide guidance to educational programs in aligning curricula and course learning objectives with competencies needed in the profession. It would assure the effectiveness of educational offerings in helping students fulfill learning objectives. It would foster and recognize fac-ulty competence. It would encourage programs to respond to their clienteles’ needs in innovative ways, and would enable prospective students and employers to identify courses and programs that meet their needs. In addition, it would assist programs in developing ongo-ing quality assurance mechanisms that will be needed to demonstrate excellence through future accreditation cycles.

This article makes the case that one way to achieve these goals is to conceive of accreditation as a form of peer-reviewed publication. The analogy is potentially powerful since publication in peer-reviewed journals is a widely accepted quality-assurance mechanism among many educators, including those who might be most skeptical about accreditation. Because publication in peer-re-viewed journals is such a weighty criterion in academic promotion and tenure decisions, many faculty members are likely to accept that the effort involved in implementing assessment plans and preparing course and program portfolios is worthwhile.

In principle at least, publishing course portfolios and pro-gram portfolios in a peer-reviewed online journal has the potential not only to enrich GIS education, but also more generally “to make teaching more central to faculty life and more powerful in its impact on student learning” (Hutchings 1996b:101). This potential is compelling since “until teaching is peer-reviewed, it will never be truly valued” (Edgerton 1996:vi). To the extent that it is truly valued, GIS education is more likely to achieve the full measure of quality that all its stakeholders deserve.

About the Author

David DiBiase directs the e-Education Institute at the Pennsyl-vania State University. He also serves as Senior Lecturer in the Department of Geography, and as faculty coordinator of

Pennsylvania State’s Certificate Program in Geographic In-formation Systems, which is offered through the University’s online “World Campus.”

Corresponding Address:Department of Geography302 Walker BuildingThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity Park. PA [email protected]

Acknowledgement

Thanks to the editors for inviting this work, and to three anony-mous reviewers for identifying opportunities to strengthen the argu-ment. Remaining weaknesses are the author’s sole responsibility.

References

Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, 2000, What is ABET and Why Is It Important? http://www.abet.org/abet_brochure.htm (Accessed January 24, 2001).

American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 2000, ASPRS Certification Program. http://www.asprs.org/membership.html (Accessed November 3, 2001).

Barnhart, P.A., 1997, The Guide to National Professional Certifica-tion Programs (Amherst, MA: HRD Press), 2nd Edition.

Berry, B.J.L., 1995, Editorial: Peer Review: Is It Working? Urban Geography, 16, 655-656.

Cook, C., 2001, Regional Accrediting Commissions: The Watchdogs of Quality Assurance in Distance Education. Syllabus, February 20, 2001, 56-57.

Crow, S.D., 2000, Assessing the Quality of Postbaccalaureate Learning in the New Higher Education Marketplace. In Kohl, K.J. and J.B. LaPidus (Eds.), Postbaccalaureate Futures: New Markets, Resources, Credentials. The American Council on Education (Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press), 136-150.

Edgerton, R., 1996, Preface. In Hutchings, P. (Ed.), Making Teaching Community Property: A Menu for Peer Collaboration and Peer Review (Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education), v-vii.

Environmental Systems Research Institute, 2002, Online Database of Academic GIS Programs. http://gis.esri.com/university/onlinedb.cfm (Accessed June 28, 2002).

Gaudet, C., H. Annulis, and J. Carr, 2001, Workforce Development Models for Geospatial Technology. http://www.geowdc.usm.edu/research/research.htm (Accessed November 17, 2001) (GeoSpa-tial Workforce Development Center, University of Southern Mississippi).

Goodstein, D., 1995, Peer Review After the Big Crunch. American Scientist, 83, 401-402.

http://www.abet.org/abet_brochure.htm

http://www.abet.org/abet_brochure.htm

http://www.asprs.org/membership.html

http://www.asprs.org/membership.html

http://gis.esri.com/university/onlinedb.cfm

http://gis.esri.com/university/onlinedb.cfm

http://www.geowdc.usm.edu/research/research.htm

http://www.geowdc.usm.edu/research/research.htm

14 URISA Journal • Vol. 15, No. 1 • 2003 URISA Journal • Harvey 15

Hamm, M.S., 1997, The Fundamentals of Accreditation (Washing-ton, DC: American Society of Association Executives).

Hatfield, S.R., 2001, The Student Learning Self-Study: Choices and Opportunities. In Ratcliff, J.L., E.S. Lubinescu, and M.A. Gaffney (Eds.), How Accreditation Influences Assessment (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass), 23-33.

Hutchings, P., 1996a, The Peer Review of Teaching: Progress, Issues and Prospects. Innovative Higher Education, 20, 221-234.

Hutchings, P., 1996b, From Peer Collaboration to Peer Review. In Hutchings, P. (Ed.), Making Teaching Community Property: A Menu for Peer Collaboration and Peer Review (Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education), 101-106.

Hutchings, P., 1998, Defining Features and Significant Functions of the Course Portfolio. In Hutchings, P. (Ed.), The Course Portfolio: How Faculty Can Examine Their teaching to Ad-vance Practice and Improve Student Learning (Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education), 13-18.

Huxhold, W., In Somers R., 2000, Defining the GIS Profession and Debating Certification and Regulation. Geo Info Systems, May 2000, 22-28.

Irby, A., 1999, Postbaccalaureate Certificates: Higher Education’s Growth Market. Chang, March/April 1999, 36-41.

Kemp, K.K. and M. F. Goodchild, 1991, Developing a Curriculum in Geographic Information Systems: The National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis Core Curriculum Project. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 15(2), 123-134.

Ketcheson, K.A., 2001, Public Accountability and Reporting: What Should Be the Public Part of Accreditation? In Ratcliff, J.L., E.S. Lubinescu, and M.A. Gaffney (Eds.), How Accreditation Influ-ences Assessment (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass), 83-93.

Kohl, K.J. and J.B. LaPidus, 2000, Postbaccalaureate Futures: Where Do We Go From Here? In Kohl, K.J. and J.B. LaPidus (Eds.), Postbaccalaureate Futures: New Markets, Resources, Creden-tials. The American Council on Education (Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press), 231-236.

LaPidus, J.B., 2000, Postbaccalaureate and Graduate Education: A Dynamic Balance. In Kohl, K.J. and J.B. LaPidus (Eds.), Post-baccalaureate Futures: New Markets, Resources, Credentials. The American Council on Education (Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press), 3-9.

Long, P.D., 2001, Communities of Practice Building Technol-ogy Tools. Syllabus. July 7, 2001. MERLOT Web site: http://www.merlot.org

Lubinescu, E.S., J.L. Ratcliff, and M.A. Gaffney, 2001, Two Contin-uums Collide: Accreditation and Assessment. In Ratcliff, J.L., E.S. Lubinescu, and M.A. Gaffney (Eds.), How Accreditation Influences Assessment (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass), 5-21.

Malik, D., 1996, External Peer Review of Teaching: A New Effort in the Chemistry Department at IUPUI. In Hutchings, P. (Ed.), Making Teaching Community Property: A Menu for Peer Collaboration and Peer Review (Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education), 95-96.

Marble, D.F., 1998, Rebuilding the Top of the Pyramid. ARC News, 20(1), 28-29.

Marchese, T., 1999, The Certificates Phenomenon. Change, March/April 1999, 4

Murray, F.B., 2001, From Consensus Standards to Evidence of Claims: Assessment and Accreditation in the Case of Teacher Education. In Ratcliff, J.L., E.S. Lubinescu, and M.A. Gaffney (Eds.), How Accreditation Influences Assessment (San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass), 5-21.

Obermeyer, N.J., 1993, Certifying GIS Professionals: Challenges and Alternatives. URISA Journal, 5, 67-75.

Obermeyer, N.J., In R. Somers, 2000, Defining the GIS Profession and Debating Certification and Regulation. Geo Info Systems, May 2000, 22-28.

Patterson, 2000, Certificate Program Snapshots. In Kohl, K.J. and J.B. LaPidus (Eds.), Postbaccalaureate Futures: New Markets, Resources, Credentials. The American Council on Education (Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press), 239-253.

Phoenix, M., 2000, Geography and the Demand for GIS Educa-tion. AAG Newsletter, June 13, 2000. Association of American Geographers.

Planning Accreditation Board, no date, Untitled. http://showcase.netins.net/web/pab_fi66 (Accessed November 4, 2001).

Planning Accreditation Board, 1994, Site Visit Manual. http://showcase.netins.net/web/pab_fi66/svmanual.htm (Accessed November 12, 2001).

Renslow, M., 2000, Personal Communication. URISA Certification Committee meetings, ESRI User Conference, San Diego CA, June 27 and 29, 2000.

Shulman, L.S., 1998, Course Anatomy: The Dissection and Analysis of Knowledge Through Teaching. In Hutchings, P. (Ed.), The Course Portfolio: How Faculty Can Examine Their Teaching to Advance Practice and Improve Student Learning (Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education), 5-12.

Urban and Regional Information Systems Association Certification Committee, 2001, Proposed Professional Certification Program for Geographic Information System. http:// www.urisa.org (Ac-cessed October 23, 2001).

U.S. Department of Labor, 2001, America’s Learning Exchange. http://www.alx.org/cert/search.asp (Accessed September 1, 2001).

Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 2000, State-ment of the Regional Accrediting Commissions on the Evalua-tion of Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs and Guidelines for the Evaluation of Electronically Offered De-gree and Certificate Programs. http://www.wiche.edu/telecom/Guidelines.htm (Accessed November 12, 2001).

Wikle, T.A., 1998, Continuing Education and Competency Pro-grammes in GIS. International Journal of Geographical Infor-mation Science, 12, 491-507.

http://showcase.netins.net/web/pab_fi66

http://showcase.netins.net/web/pab_fi66

http://showcase.netins.net/web/pab_fi66/svmanual.htm

http://showcase.netins.net/web/pab_fi66/svmanual.htm

http://www.urisa.org

http://www.alx.org/cert/search.asp

http://www.alx.org/cert/search.asp

http://www.wiche.edu/telecom/Guidelines.htm

http://www.wiche.edu/telecom/Guidelines.htm


IntroductionPublic safety concerns connected to geographic information quality and reliability are not new (Burley 1993, Obermeyer 1993), but have recently led to an increased concern with the methods and practices of geographic information system (GIS) professionals and the credentials of those involved (Obermeyer and Onsrud 1997). Certification and licensing appear to offer a solution to these concerns, while also contributing to defining an amorphous field. This contribution includes helping resolve the difficulties that employers have in identifying suitable can-didates (Huxold 2000) and supporting the professionalization of GIS (Somers 2000). In the United States, states and counties address important public safety concerns through certification of surveyors-in-training and licensing or registering of surveyors. Other countries address these issues through similar approaches. However, the breadth of GIS use takes many activities outside of this regulated area. The surveying profession in the U.S. recently has taken issue with the public safety issues inherent in untrained and unqualified people collecting original measurements used in determining the boundary or the location of fixed works (Joffe 2001). Many questions are being asked about certification proposals for GIS (Somers 2002). This article addresses the key dimension of public safety as a criteria for professional certifica-tion or licensing.

While the term “public safety” is popularly associated with public health concerns, fire, emergency medical services, and disaster planning, it is a key concern for the structures designed and built by architects and engineers that could possibly endanger members of society. For this reason, public safety is the prime reason for licensing programs that protect the public from in-dividuals apparently claiming sufficient credentials and abilities (Allen et al. 2000).

The Significance of Public Safety for GIS Professional Licensing and Certification

Francis J. Harvey

Abstract: What is the relevance of public safety concerns for geographic information system (GIS) certification? How should professionals and instructors incorporate these concerns in education? The importance of public safety is developed in this article through the examination of two case studies of licensing that engage the political, philosophical, and scientific dimensions of licensing and certification. While these case studies deal with licensing, they point to a critical question for GIS certification: Is there a test that assures that GIS certification will fulfill public safety concerns? The many issues impacting public safety indicate the impossibility of a single test. GIS professional certification must reflect the broad range of public safety concerns. Despite the difficulties in establishing criteria that ensure public safety, discussions surrounding certification help articulate a core body of knowledge in GIS and GIScience, identify standards of practice, and promote research in this area. In terms of education, consideration of public safety issues should become part of curricula preparing individuals for future careers. A fundamental awareness of public safety issues can and should be appropriately anchored in GIScience education.

Ostensible public safety concerns, however, may mask eco-nomic interests and attempts of an elite group to assert political control of a profession. As a result, licensing and certification can demonstrate contradictory purposes. Consider the examples of hair stylists and cooks. Hair stylists are licensed in most areas. While this activity evidences some degree of public safety concern, is this concern sufficient to require licensing? The comparatively limited public contact and corresponding low safety risk to the public clearly speak against the cost and complexity of certifica-tion or licensing, yet even poorly paid hair stylists must pay for licensing. In contrast, consider the licensing of cooks with much more public contact. Cooks are generally not licensed, although many have voluntary professional or apprenticeship certificates. However, many cases of disease spread by cooks have endangered public safety. The famous case of “Typhoid Mary” who worked as a cook at several homes and restaurants infecting hundreds of people with typhoid has become part of popular knowledge. In spite of numerous deaths, her career as a cook ended only when she was forcibly quarantined to an island in New York Harbor. The examples of licensing in the first case and the lack of licens-ing in the second reflect the complex interactions between pub-lic safety and professional motivations of relevant professional organizations.

Even though there are contexts in GIS with no immediate public safety implications (e.g., ecological habitat mapping), public safety has some relevance in all discussions surrounding GIS certification. Clearly, in a few areas using GIS—emergency management services, public health, fire protection, civil engi-neering, some engineering applications—public safety is an issue for nearly every activity (Amdahl 2001). Practitioners in these domains recognize public safety issues. Currently, they could be readily licensed, certified, bonded, and/or insured. However,


public safety concerns are much broader. A homeowner with some experience could use a GIS to determine where to put a new well. A planner could use a GIS to evaluate building conditions and code violations and call for demolition of substandard housing units. The well digging could hit an underground cable or gas line, and the destruction of affordable housing could put people on the street or in overcrowded shelters. The range of public safety issues is theoretically infinite. As a result, GIS professional certification has been proposed by some as a viable response to these concerns.

It is important to acknowledge that a number of reasons beyond public safety concerns are offered in support of GIS cer-tification. These include the need to assist employers in assessing a job candidate’s knowledge, the demand by practitioners for a way to demonstrate their hard-earned skills and knowledge, and the need to help those who wish to become GIS professionals design appropriate education and experience pathways (Huxold 2000). As well, it is useful to note that discussions about other forms of certification are current in the GIS context. In addition to the certification and licensing of individuals, software and data certification offer alternative or complementary approaches to ensuring public safety. While these are intriguing possible solu-tions to the issue, they involve fundamental issues outside of the scope of this discussion. This article focuses on the public safety concerns as a crucial aspect of GIS certification and points out the relevance of taking up these issues in GIScience education and research.

Certification and Licensing: Key DifferencesBecause the terms “certification” and “licensing” are widely

used, and confused, it is important to begin by examining their respective definitions. Legal writing on the subject makes an im-portant distinction. Certification shows that a standard or level of quality has been met. For example, the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval is a certification that attests a product meets indus-try-set criteria. Certificates can be awarded by any organization or association. Certification, legally understood, is the “formal assertion in writing of some fact” (Black 1990:227). In contrast, licensing is the regulation of a profession by a government. Seen from the legal perspective, professional licensing gives “permission to do what is otherwise restricted, prohibited or illegal” (Walker 1980:769). Licensing is the government exercise of its police power, which is the constitutional law concept that empowers the government to restrict an individual’s freedom to protect “public safety, health, and welfare.”

The relevant difference between certification and licensing is governmental regulation and restriction of activities. Based on the legal distinction, any organization can certify people under its own authority, whereas licensing is established only through govern-mental legislation. Unfortunately, the terminological distinction is thoroughly muddled in practice. Certificates of licensing are awarded. The term “certified” is often mistakenly used to designate licensed persons. For example, Texas State law provides for both certified and licensed real estate appraisers. From the legal point

of view, because this certification is state-controlled and legally required, a state-certified real estate appraiser actually has a form of license (Texas Appraiser Licensing and Certification Board 2001). This terminological imprecision also masks the common practices through which professional associations provide docu-ments and criteria that legislative acts implement as licensing law and requirements. In this way, certification criteria developed by a professional group can evolve and in effect become a protectionist means to control entry to a professional field (Wilson 2001).

For this article, these distinctions are highly important. Whereas public safety concerns are always the fundamental is-sue in licensing, the same concerns can become highly relevant to, although not a legal foundation for, certification. Related to this, the question arises whether certification raises liability issues and implicit legal responsibilities.

Two Case StudiesTwo recent controversial issues provide case studies to illustrate the thesis of this article. In the first case study, I set the stage for considering the roles of scientific, political, and philosophical issues involved in licensing and certification. This case study draws on a recent debate among members of the Association of Computing Machinery (ACM) regarding the licensing of software engineers. The second case study frames these issues in the GIS context. It provides an overview of recent activities by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) to establish a new model law for the licensure of engineers and land surveyors.

The ACM Software Engineer Licensing DebateThe ACM was founded in 1947 and currently has 80,000 mem-bers. Although much larger than any GIScience or geography association, the ACM is comparably diverse with approximately 38 specialty groups; there are more than 50 specialty groups in the Association of American Geographers. Considering this breadth, the underlying scientific, political, and philosophical issues identi-fied by the ACM hold lessons for current discussions about GIS professional certification and licensing issues for the GIScience community at large.

In May 1999, following the report of a specially commissioned panel and committee deliberations, the ACM Council concluded that “…there is no form of licensing that can be instituted today assuring the public safety” (Allen et al. 2000). As the panel stated, “the primary arguments for licensing are that it will happen with or without the involvement of the ACM and that the development of license standards will, at a minimum, strengthen software develop-ment knowledge and practice” (ACM Panel on Professional Licensing in Software Engineering 1999).Wary of implying an endorsement of existing licensing schemes, the Council decided that the ACM would withdraw from any activity that gave the appearance of condoning the licensing of software engineers. Specifically, the ACM Council adopted the panel on professional licensing in software engineering majority’s recommendation that licensing “does not address the software quality problem and is premature.”


The ACM Council decision to oppose software engineer licensing was based on consideration of three critical issues for GIS public safety concerns: scientific merit, political issues, and philosophical concerns. The scientific merit issue that the ACM considered revolves around this question: “Is there a test [licensing exam] that will assure the person who passes the test will be qualified to write programs that would never endanger the public? Will that person be qualified to sign off on program designs to assure they are sound, just as building designs are signed by structural architects to assure the building is sound?” (Allen et al. 2000:29). The Council and committees looking into this issue found no test to assure a software program design that would assure public safety. Further, they found that no one knows how to prepare such a test. Without building codes for programs and a vocabulary rich enough to discuss their structural integrity, the Council called for more research upon which such a test can be derived.

Political issues often remain in the background of certifica-tion and licensing discussions, masked by ostensible concerns with public safety, health, and welfare, but many times may be the underlying motivations for professional groups seeking to control a profession. The political rationale for licensing and certification is directly connected to the size and influence of disciplinary as-sociations. For the ACM, the political issue is inseparable from economic concerns: “As traditional engineering disciplines at-tract fewer people than the software construction/programming disciplines attract, those groups who make their money from fees derived from licensing and accrediting engineers will look upon software engineers as a good growth area and attempt to assert their control” (Allen et al. 2000:29).

The ACM Council also discussed two philosophical con-cerns. The first was whether to participate in licensing activities even though the Council did not approve of licensing. Going with the majority of the panel, the Council decided that participation would be perceived as an endorsement and would “lull people into thinking we do know how to assure public safety when we don’t” (Allen et al. 2000:30). The second philosophical point is the question of when to begin licensing. Some panelists hoped that beginning the licensing process would help mature the field. The Council determined that the possible harm of licensing—the consequences of using incomplete and insufficient licensing re-quirements—outweighs any possible good.

Although the ACM withdrew from active participation in the development of a licensing examination, it continues to work with the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Computer Society on definitions of an appropriate corpus of knowledge and standards for software engineering. Two task forces were formed to assess these issues and evaluate all options for ensuring public safety. Although the ACM currently opposes licensing of software engineers since no form of licensing ensures public safety, these task forces will focus on solving the software quality problem.

The scientific, political, and philosophical issues the ACM addressed are directly relevant for GIS certification and licensing

discussions. The same questions that the ACM raised can be asked of GIS certification and licensing: Is there a test [licensing exam] that will assure the person

who passes the test will be qualified to conduct GIS projects that would never endanger public safety?

Are groups attempting to use licensing/certification as a means to generate income for their professional organizations and assert control over a burgeoning field?

Does the participation in licensing and certification proposals indicate tacit approval of incomplete and insufficient criteria?

These questions should be discussed publicly through an open and frank discussion by the numerous groups involved in activities that GIS licensing or certification would encompass. This joint discussion may take some time. In the meantime, the public safety concerns of GIS remain. Some groups have taken on these issues directly (NCEES, see below), while others include them implicitly in their activities (American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS), the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (URISA), and the University Consortium for Geographic Information Science (UCGIS)).

The NCEES Model LawThe NCEES Model Law for the Licensure of Engineers and Land Surveyors is intended to be used as “a reference work in the preparation of amendments to existing legislation or in the preparation of new proposed laws” (NCEES 2001:5). Building such a model law is tricky business. While surveyors are concerned that the wording of the model law may prohibit “them from doing the work they have historically been conducting” (Joffe 2001:35), other professionals feel threatened by the appearance of a broadening of the duties covered under legal licensure. The Model Law is important for all GIScience practitioners concerned with public safety issues.

The NCEES Model Law offers a thought-provoking example of how one professional group (surveyors) addresses public safety concerns. While much of the Model Law focuses on the con-stitution and maintenance of a board to organize the licensing process, it offers ample insights into the legal issues surrounding licensing and the protection of public safety. For this section, I am citing and drawing on the Model Law published in August 2001 (NCEES 2001). Discussion and working papers available at the NCEES (www.ncees.org) and the American Congress on Survey-ing and Mapping (ACSM) (http://www.acsm.net/nceegislis.html) provide additional insights. To improve comparability, the sci-entific, political, and philosophical issues framework described by the ACM Council is used here to organize an analysis of the Model Law and background documents.

Scientific Issues. The Model Law allows graduate surveyors with 4 years of combined office and field experience to be admitted to an 8-hour written examination on the principles and practice of surveying or land surveying whose contents are determined by the board. The lack of specifics for the test in terms of public


safety issues is somewhat compensated by the definition section of the Model Law. The activities identified in a non-exclusive list include the measurement of lines and angles to position fixed ob-jects, property line and boundary work, land subdivision, locating and setting of survey monuments and reference points, and the use of GIS to perform these activities. These exemplar activities undergird some of most common surveying activities.

However, in the Model Law, the practice of surveying is not limited to the list of activities:

The term “Practice of Surveying or Land Surveying,” within the intent of this Act shall mean providing professional services such as consultation, investigation, testimony evaluation, expert technical testimony, planning, mapping, assembling, and interpreting reliable scientific measurements and information relative to the location, size, shape, or physical features of the earth, improvements on the earth, the space above the earth, or any part of the earth, and utilization and development of these facts and interpretation into an orderly survey map, plan, report, description, or project. (NCEES 2001)

Considerable concern has been raised in the GIS community at large regarding the inclusive nature of the definition that seems to include any scientifically measured representation of the earth’s surface. The GIS/LIS report from October 2000 addressed this issue (GIS/LIS 2000) noting that the definition should exclude activities with low regulatory interest and activities not part of the “Practice of Surveying or Land Surveying” affecting “the health, safety or welfare of the public” (GIS/LIS 2000:3). Joffe (2001:36) suggested that a critical distinction can be made between GIS products “intended to be used as the authoritative document for the location of parcels, fixed works, survey monuments, elevation measurements, etc.” and those used for other purposes.

Recently, NCEES and the surveying community have moved toward a less inclusive definition. Suggested changes outlined in the Draft Preliminary Report of a task force of representatives from several of the professional organizations representing GIS professionals stipulate that professional surveying only include “Geographic Information System-based parcel or cadastral map-ping used for authoritative boundary definition purposes wherein land title or development rights for individual parcels are, or may be, affected” (ASPRS 2002:12). Nevertheless, this controversy leaves open the debate regarding the definition of the field and thus the question of what should be tested to assure competence of licensed surveyors across the domain that they are expected to serve.

Political Issues. As it stands, the broad definition of the “Prac-tice of Surveying or Land Surveying” suggests a political intent. By making the definition so inclusive of professional services including planning, mapping, etc., practitioners wishing to con-tinue data collection and mapping in jurisdictions that have implemented the Model Law in this form would be required to become licensed surveyors. Analogous to attempts of related fields to colonize areas of software engineering reported by the ACM Council, this appears to be an attempt to put into place a

licensing requirement that would place control of all professional GIS activities in the hands of licensed surveyors. In one of the activities listed, “planning,” the U.S. planning field already has its own certification program. Generally, two reasons go against this kind of all-encompassing definition of surveying. On the one hand, this definition fails to include all related activities that affect public safety (e.g., GPS car navigation). On the other hand, the definition becomes so inclusive that the precise demarcation of surveying practice would require litigation. As it appears the suggested changes will be included in a revision of the Model Law due out in the summer of 2003 (Joffe 2002), these political issues seem to have been partially resolved.

Philosophical Issues. Since the NCEES has already promoted the Model Law and it has become the basis for the licensing of surveyors in South Carolina and other states, the philosophical issues regarding whether and when to undertake licensing in these GIS-related fields that the ACM Council identified are indeed moot.

Public Safety In GIS Certification and LicensingHaving examined some of the current discussions related to public safety and licensing in other fields, we can now turn to a consid-eration of how public safety issues are accounted for in current GIS certification and licensing activities. Again, it is worthwhile to consider the scientific, political, and philosophical issues. As might be expected, published documents on GIS certification contain little reference to public safety. The University Consortium for Geographic Information Science white paper titled Educational Policy and GIS: Accreditation and Certification (Obermeyer and Onsrud 1997) does not mention public safety, assuming that cer-tificates only show a level of education or training. It even argues that UCGIS members should have little interest in certification since it would dilute the meaning of the academic degrees they award. In a later article, Obermeyer (2000) articulates the political and philosophical rationale for involving UCGIS in the certifi-cation discussion but states nothing about public safety. On the other hand, Huxold (2000) points implicitly to the importance of public safety. Taking up earlier work on certification, one of Huxold’s three benefits of GIS certification is “Public benefit by the encouragement of higher levels of competency among practi-tioners.” While public benefit is not necessarily synonymous with public safety, it does promote awareness of issues that overlap.

In discussions among surveyors, the GIS and public safety issue is foremost. Surveyors are very aware of the related scientific, political, and philosophical issues (Joffe 2001). For example, ar-ticles on certification and licensing in the Professional Surveyor deal with the control of GIS, the relationship of GIS to surveying and geomatics, and the cost of inaccurate data bases (Henstridge 1999, Schmidt 1999). In literature discussing GIS certification and licensing, the clearest articulation of the role of public safety comes from Jim Plasker, executive director of the American Society for


Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, in a GeoSpatial Solutions article organized and edited by Rebecca Somers (2000). Discussing the NCEES contributions to revisions of the Model Law, Plasker makes clear that the reason for licensed surveyors’ attention to certification and licensing is protection of the public: “Recent developments in GIS and related data acquisition technologies now make it possible for unregulated practitioners to accomplish certain surveying activities that, if not completed properly, would be detrimental to public safety or individuals’ property rights” (Somers 2000:28). Corresponding to the ACM’s political category, Plasker makes it clear that the surveyor’s concern for public safety goes hand-in-hand with the concern that high accuracy measurements made by GIS users “will inadvertently encroach on the regulated practice of surveying” (Somers 2000:28).

All of these arguments demonstrate that it is important for GIS professionals to consider the science, politics, and philosophy of GIS certification and licensing in relationship to public safety. Without tests or standards that assure public safety, the current GIS certification and licensing discussion may be seen to be little more than an attempt to stake out professional turf. As the ex-amples above demonstrate, licensing and certification proponents’ calls for certification may reflect strong political motivations—the control of a field through certification or legislation can serve to protect the economic interests of people who define and maintain the instruments of licensing and certification.

However, a more fundamental question remains: Do cer-tificates matter? Most people advocating certification refer to its usefulness in evaluating job candidates, in helping professionals design their own professional development activities, and in the establishment of mechanisms to assure continuing education such as those provided for their certified professionals by the American Institute of Certified Planners’ or the American Institute of Archi-tects’ Continuing Education System. Depending on whether you are an employer or looking for employment, your perspectives will vary. While certificates such as the Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer certification are vendor issued and indicate the tested achievement of a skill level, point-based certification approaches such as that being promoted by URISA, which account for a lifetime of education and experience, can become so nonspecific as to be meaningless for employers looking for concrete measures of job candidates’ skills and abilities. If GIS certification can be acquired through an infinite number of paths, how will it become useful for job seekers looking to distinguish their abilities? In this author’s opinion, the vagueness of the current URISA certifica-tion proposal lacks specific indicators to make GIS certificates alone meaningful. [Editor’s note: See the report in this issue by Huxhold and Craig for a very different perspective on the role of GIS professional certification.]

Important Questions For EducationThe ACM Council’s deliberations and decision should serve as a touchstone for our critical examination of what certification should accomplish in GIS. Is there a role for the consideration of public safety in the GIS certification initiatives? If so, what are the scientific, political and philosophical implications? From the philosophical perspective that the ACM raises, educators will need to ask whether GIScience is ready for certification—do we have guidelines, practices, and criteria to teach, and tests to administer that can assure public safety? If public safety is a key reason for undertaking certification of GIS professionals, it would be disin-genuous to assert that it is called for when there are no grounds to assess how certification or licensing would assure public safety.

Whether or not public safety issues drive GIS certification, there is some value in GIS educators and researchers beginning to ask how they can help to develop GIS practices, tests, and criteria that assure public safety. The ACM pointed to quality as a key dimension of software engineering, and that may be an equally suitable starting point for GIS. Geographic information science can contribute to the development of quality and practice criteria to inform discussions about public safety concerns. It is important to recall that the first papers on data quality dealt with the use of GIS in public offices charged with assuring equitable policy and maintaining public safety (Chrisman 1984). Recent work on data quality presents measures of quality and means of making quality information more accessible for public deci-sion-making (Morrison 1995, Egenhofer 1997, Widmer 1997, Goodchild 1998, Harvey 1998, Chrisman 1999;). Likewise, the division between authoritative and location-referencing GIS ac-tivities now being proposed in the NCEES Model Law revisions begins to distinguish GIS products and activities according to their importance to public safety.

Despite the difficulty of establishing certification criteria that ensure public safety, discussions surrounding certification will help to articulate a core body of knowledge in GIS and GIScience, identify standards of practice, and promote research in this area. In terms of education, consideration of public safety issues should become part of curricula preparing individuals for future careers. While we should be wary of locking in standards that may become outdated quickly, a fundamental awareness of public safety issues can and should be appropriately anchored in GIScience education.

ConclusionThe question whether GIS certification can and should, in the broadest sense, satisfy public safety concerns has yet to be directly addressed by the GIS community. Taking into account the diver-sity of the GIScience field, our professional activities, and social commitments, the time is simply too early for meaningful GIS li-censing that assures public safety. Considering the breadth of GIS, we are not yet ready to answer the question: “What qualifications must a person possess to assure their work with GIS will never

20 URISA Journal • Vol. 15, No. 1 • 2003 URISA Journal • Gaudet, Annulis,Carr 21

endanger the public?” Although public safety concerns currently play a less significant role in certification than in licensing, they are still crucial for assuring the quality of GIS work and understand-ing the consequences of inappropriate practice. Public safety is a key issue for GIS licensing and certification and should form an important foundation in GIS education. Without appropriate consideration of public safety, we run the risk, like any profession, of damaging the public reputation of GIS.

About the Author

Francis J. Harvey is an Assistant Professor of Geography at the University of Minnesota. His research ranges widely from studies and the development of semantic interoperable Geo-graphic Information Technologies to historical work in ge-ography. Most of his recent research has revolved around the development of the US National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) among local governments. He has also contributed to research on geographic information ethics.

Corresponding Address:Francis J. HarveyDepartment of GeographyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolis, MN [email protected]

References

Allen, F., Hawthorn, and B. Simons, 2000, Not Now, Not Like This. Communications of the ACM, 43(2), 29-30.

Amdahl, G., 2001, Disaster Response: GIS for Public Safety (Redlands, CA: ESRI Press).

American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 2002, Task Force for Model Law for Surveying (Draft Preliminary Report). http://www.asprs.org/asprs/news/ncees_frame.html

Association of Computing Machinery Panel on Professional Licensing in Software Engineering, 1999, ACM Panel on Professional Licensing in Software Engineering Report to Council.

Black, H.C. (Ed.), 1990, Black’s Law Dictionary (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing).

Burley, J.B., 1993, GIS Certification: Precedents and Choices. URISA Journal, 5(2), 17-19.

Chrisman, N.R., 1984, The Role of Quality Information in the Long Term Functioning of a GIS. Cartographica, 21(2), 79-87.

Chrisman, N.R., 1999, Speaking Truth to Power: An Agenda for Change. In Lowell, K. and A. Jaton (Eds.), Spatial Accuracy Assessment. Land Information Uncertainty in Natural Re-sources (Chelsea, MI: Ann Arbor Press), 27-31.

Connolly, J. and T. Yager, 2001, Do Certificates Matter? Info-world, 22(January), 33-34.

Egenhofer, M., 1997, Editorial: Consistency Revisited. GeoIn-formatica, 1, 323-325.

GIS/LIS, 2000, GIS/LIS Addendum to the Report of the Task Force on the NCEES Model Law for Surveying, http://www.acsm.net/gislisreport.pdf

Goodchild, M.F., 1998, Uncertainty: The Achilles Heel of GIS? Geo Info Systems, 8(11), 50-52.

Harvey, F., 1998, Improving Access to Geographic Information Quality, First AGILE Meeting, Enschede, April 23-25, 1998.

Henstridge, F., 1999, GIS and the Surveyor: Who Will Control the GIS? Professional Surveyor, 19(9), http://www.profsurv.com/ps_scripts/article.idc?id=510

Huxold, W.E., 2000, GIS Certification and Accreditation: It’s Time to Get Serious (Lest We All Become “Data Mappers”). http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/other/ucgis/certification/huxold.pdf

Joffe, B., 2001, Surveyors and GIS Professionals Reach Accord. Surveying and Land Information Systems, 61(1), 35-36.

Joffe, B., 2002, NCEES Approves Revision to Model Law for Surveyors, Directions Magazine, August 28, 2002, http://www.directionsmag.com/article.php?article_id=247

Morrison, J.L., 1995, Spatial Data Quality. In Guptill, S.S. and J.L. Morrison (Eds.), Elements of Spatial Data Quality (Oxford: Elsevier Science), 1-12.

National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying, 2001, Model Law, Surveying and Land Information Systems, 61(1), 5-23, www.ncees.org


Obermeyer, N.J., 2000, GIS Certification and Accreditation: An Idea Whose Time Has Come, http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/other/ucgis/certification/obermeyer.pdf

Obermeyer, N.J., and H. Onsrud, J., 1997, Educational Policy and GIS: Accreditation and Certification, http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/other/ucgis/ed_priorities/aandc.html

Schmidt, W.A., 1999, Second Thoughts: Surveying and Geomatics. www.profsurv.com/ps_scripts/article.ide?id=498

Somers, R., 2000, Defining the GIS Profession and Debat-ing Certification and Regulation. GeoSpatial Solutions, 10(May), 22-29.

Somers, R., 2002, Certification Progresses. But How Will It Help? GeoSpatial Solutions, 12(June), 38-41.

Texas Appraiser Licensing and Certification Board, 2001, Requirements for Becoming a Certified or Licensed Real Estate Appraiser or an Approved Appraiser Trainee. www.talcb.state.tx.us/pdf/forms/requirements.pdf

Walker, D.M., 1980, The Oxford Companion to Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

Widmer, F., 1997, Qualität in der amtlichen Vermessung. Vermes-sung, Photogrammetrie, Kulturtechnik, 95(4), 172-176.

Wilson, L., 2001, Certification vs. Licensing. www.anma.com/licvscert.htm

http://www.profsurv.com/ps_scripts/article.idc?id=510

http://www.profsurv.com/ps_scripts/article.idc?id=510

http://www.directionsmag.com/article.php?article_id=247

http://www.directionsmag.com/article.php?article_id=247


IntroductionThe worldwide market for geospatial technologies has enormous market potential. Currently estimated at $5 billion, the market is projected to have annual revenues of $30 billion by 2005 (remote sensing market: $20 billion; geographic information services market: $10 billion). In the mapping market alone, worldwide annual revenues for satellite and aerial data products are estimated to increase from $2.2 to $4.2 billion over the next 5 years. High-resolution satellite imagery product revenues are estimated to increase from $1.4 to $3.8 billion in the same period. In the United States, remote sensing industry annual revenues are projected to increase steadily from the 1992 benchmark of $0.75 billion to $4 billion by 2005 (National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 2001).

As an emerging growth industry, there is a serious shortfall of professionals and trained specialists who can utilize geospatial technologies in their jobs. The growth of this market demands support of the education, training, and development of geospa-tial professionals and specialists. A strategy is required to meet the challenge of providing a well-trained workforce while at the same time perpetuating an expanding market of persons trained, familiar, and ready to apply geospatial technologies when solving workplace and societal challenges.

The Office of Education and the Earth Science Applications Directorate (formerly the Commercial Remote Sensing Program) at the NASA John C. Stennis Space Center implemented the National Workforce Development Education and Training Initiative (NWDETI) in an effort to develop a well-trained geospatial workforce. The Geospatial Workforce Development Center (GeoWDC) at The University of Southern Mississippi is part of this initiative. NWDETI is a customer-focused effort to meet workforce demands for the emerging multi-billion dol-lar geospatial industry and to help the U.S. maintain its global leadership in geospatial technologies.

Building the Geospatial Workforce

Cyndi H. Gaudet, Heather M. Annulis, and Jon C. Carr

Abstract: In response to an increase in the number of skilled workers needed to sustain the geospatial workplace, the Geospatial Workforce Development Center developed the Geospatial Technology Competency Model that identifies the roles, competencies, and outputs for the geospatial technology industry. A rigorous research methodology was utilized to develop a competency model that integrates the technical, business, analytical, and interpersonal skills required for the geospatial marketplace. Organizations can use the Geospatial Technology Com-petency Model to describe the kinds of workers needed in the geospatial information technology industry, improve employee recruitment and selection, manage the performance of existing employees, and design geospatial information technology training and education programs.

The Geospatial WorkforceWith increased market potential comes an increased need for a systematic approach to developing a workforce to support industry growth. The workforce planning process must be a customer-driven process that determines workforce needs and provides the foundation for appropriate training and education opportunities.

Concurrent with the growth and development of the geo-spatial industry is an increased research interest in geospatial workforce training and development. For example, the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (URISA) has led an effort to create and implement geographic information system (GIS) certification with the goal of establishing workplace stan-dards for the GIS industry (http://www.urisa.org). Other organi-zations such as the Association for Geographic Information (http://www.agi.org) have been actively involved in conducting job and task analyses to create a set of skill profiles for GIS positions in the U.S. and the United Kingdom. The University Consortium of Geographic Information Science (http://www.ucgis.org) has focused efforts on the academic preparation of GIS professionals by developing a model curriculum. Current activities related to professional certification in GIS are documented and available at http://institute.redlands.edu/users/kemp/certification/. The American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (http://www.asprs.org) has also been involved with developing a remote sensing core curriculum.

Efforts to understand the geospatial industry needs and academic preparation requirements have not gone without some debate. Certification, accreditation, and licensure – each with a dif-ferent purpose and focus – have struggled for definition within the geospatial profession (Huxhold 1991, Goodchild and Kemp 1992, Obermeyer 1993). In fact, the categorization of GIS as a profession with standards is part of the debate. Academic programs supporting GIS education, according to Wikle (1999), vary in the structure, duration, sponsorship, and intended student population.

http://www.urisa.org

http://www.agi.org

http://www.agi.org


http://institute.redlands.edu/users/kemp/certification/

http://www.asprs.org


Given the lack of agreement on GIS as a profession, the most appropriate academic program to prepare those who would work in this “profession,” and the absence of recognized standards or industry certification, it is no surprise that organizations equipped with increased geospatial technology capabilities for decision sup-port are questioning the kind of people to hire. The scope of this study is to better understand the work being done by geospatial technology professionals and the work roles they perform in their organizations.

While the authors acknowledge and understand the continu-ing challenges related to the development of educational responses to these issues of debate, the purpose of this research is to focus on the work needs as they exist in the geospatial industry and how a market-driven approach can better assist in the workforce planning process. One such process is the use of a competency model because it provides a more comprehensive and flexible approach to identify those workforce competencies required by the geospatial profession.

Competency ModelsThe roots of competency models date back more than 20 years, and represent a process that was popularized by the late psycholo-gist, David McClelland. According to Briscoe and Hall (1999), the major approaches to developing a competency framework are accomplished using a research-based, strategy-based, or a values-based approach. The recent resurgence in applying competency models helps organizations and whole industries focus on what is needed to succeed in today’s workplace.

Perhaps part of the renewed interest in competency models is the shift in workforce development from a focus on workplace activity to workplace results. Organizations need a framework for workforce development to help them achieve the results needed for success. Creating a workforce development plan requires an analysis of the work that is required. With the changing nature of jobs and work, the concept of a “job” is becoming obsolete. In many high-technology industries, cross-functional project teams are common and employees shift from project to project through-out the year. Even the job of managers changes in such situations, for they must serve their project teams as facilitators, gatherers of resources, and removers of roadblocks (Mathis and Jackson 2000). What has become apparent, given the cross-functional nature of work and the speed with which technology changes work tasks and responsibilities, is a more flexible technique for approaching workforce development. Traditional job and task analyses are not flexible and often become obsolete by the time they are complete.

Today’s fast-changing workplace requires that the basis for recruiting, selecting, and compensating individuals is their com-petence and skills, rather than a job title. The best approach to develop a workforce is to focus less on specific tasks and duties and more on identifying work-related competencies. Compe-tencies can be described as “behaviors that distinguish effective performers from ineffective ones” (Dalton 1997:48), can include motives, beliefs, and values (Mirabile 1997), and are generally

representative of the tasks and activities used to accomplish a specific job (McLagan 1996). Groups of competencies typically include knowledge, skills, abilities, or characteristics associated with high performance on the job. Knowledge is the understand-ing needed for a particular subject or process, while the skills would include both the technical and nontechnical requirements to accomplish a task. Abilities are those appropriate on-the-job behaviors needed to bring both knowledge and skills to bear (LeBleu and Sobkowiak 1995).

When competencies are identified, they should be organized and presented in a meaningful way for use by employees, hiring organizations, and curricula developers. The resulting framework of competencies is a competency model. The term “competency model” refers to the knowledge, skills, and abilities identified for successful performance for a particular organization or industry. Pat McLagan defines competency model as “a decision tool that describes the key capabilities for performing a specific job (1980:23).”

A competency model is a set of success factors, often called competencies, that include the key behaviors required for excellent performance in a particular role. Excellent performers on-the-job demonstrate these behaviors much more consistently than average or poor performers. These characteristics include key behaviors that drive excellent performance. These characteristics are gen-erally presented with a definition and key behavioral indicators. (Sanchez 2000:510)

“The construction of a competency model calls for the cor-rect identification of the critical competencies required for effec-tive performance (Ingalls 1979:32).” In order to achieve “correct identification,” the designer of the model must conduct extensive research into the company or industry concerned with workforce development. Role experts—individuals who function in specific areas of expertise in their job—must be interviewed. A common mistake during the design process is that management, without input from role experts—makes decisions about the skills neces-sary to perform a certain job. “Building a so-called competency model based solely on the beliefs and opinions of a group of people, albeit powerful people, makes it a useless exercise (Dalton 1997:48).” The “useless exercise” yields an “ideal”—and often impractical—model rather than a model displaying the expected outcomes. Role experts provide input so that the expected model lends itself to flexibility. The model looks to the future rather than just the present, and the model is not specific to the job. Because of the focus on competencies instead of job titles or job descriptions, the model can grow and develop with the changing needs of the organization or industry.

Competency Model BenefitsCompetency modeling is an attempt to describe work and jobs in a broader, more comprehensive way (Zemke and Zemke 2000). Competency-based performance models yield a common lan-guage across positions within an industry. It is the best approach when creating a performance management system, and it enables workforce development professionals to identify core capabilities


required of any employee in any position across an entire orga-nization or industry (Gilley and Maycunich 2000). Robinson and Robinson (1996) encourage the use of a performance model when describing “should” performance for a specific position or job cluster.

In addition to performance management benefits, results from competency models can be easily translated into training curricula. While training programs based on work-oriented task analysis can become dated as work undergoes dynamic change, training programs based on competency assessment are more flex-ible and perhaps have more durability (Bohlander et al. 2001).

The Geospatial Technology Competency Model (GTCM) developed at The University of Southern Mississippi most importantly provides a way to articulate the kinds of workers needed in the industry. The GTCM provides a research-based set of competencies for hiring organizations to use to improve employee recruitment and selection and to create competency-based performance management systems to help professionally develop existing employees in the industry. Finally, the GTCM

offers a research framework for training providers and academic institutions to use for creating the most effective and efficient training and education opportunities.

Research Methodology The methodology for the study was conducted in several major research phases designed to systematically analyze and validate geospatial technology workforce requirements.

Phase OneThe first phase was to review current literature and identify existing skills and standards for related roles, competencies, and outputs for the geospatial industry. This phase is consistent with Lucia and Lepsinger (1999), wherein researchers seek to build on and validate existing competencies. Additionally, this phase sought to identify existing geospatial stakeholder organizations in order to create a task force of geospatial technology experts. Through an iterative process, this task force provided input and feedback for a preliminary list of geospatial competencies derived from an extensive literature review.

Phase TwoSubsequent to the creation of a preliminary list of competencies, the second phase of the research methodology was initiated, con-sistent with McLagan and Suhadolnik (1989) methodology to involve industry stakeholders. For Phase Two, individuals were identified to participate in focus group sessions designed to bring together active participants in the geospatial industry from public and private organizations both large and small, trade and pro-fessional associations, and educational institutions. Collectively, focus group participants represented more than two hundred years of geospatial technology expertise and experience brought to the table for each focus group session. These diverse stakeholders were charged with defining and reaching consensus for a baseline

definition of the geospatial industry and determining present and future workforce needs for the industry. In addition, focus group participants were asked to identify geospatial work roles and to review international geospatial workforce standards. For a detailed listing of all focus group participants, see the Workforce Develop-ment Models for Geospatial Technology report, accessible on the GeoWDC Web site http://www.geowdc.usm.edu.

Phase ThreeA first draft of the GTCM was the result of the third phase of the research methodology. For this phase, focus group participants who are considered industry stakeholders utilized a group deci-sion support system made available by the NASA John C. Stennis Space Center. The focus group activities centered on (a) validat-ing the roles and role definitions created in the second phase, (b) identifying the products and services provided by geospatial technology professionals and the quality requirements associated with each, (c) identifying ethical challenges and future forces for the geospatial technology workforce, and (d) defining the required workplace competencies for each work role.

In order for the GTCM to have meaning and relevance for those who will ultimately use the model, industry stakeholders were involved from the beginning to help guide competency model development. The early participation gave members of the geospatial community the opportunity to review the scope of the study, revise role definitions and outputs, and revise preliminary competency menus. This effort helped structure activities for focus group participants who were considered industry stakeholders. Representatives from the following organizations participated in focus group sessions for this study: American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote

Sensing Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Systems Research Institute Federal Emergency and Management Agency Geospatial Information Technologies Association Global Initiatives, Inc. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Mississippi State University National State Geographic Information Council Pennsylvania Department of Military and Veterans Affairs Spatial Technologies Industry Association University Consortium for Geographic Information

Science Urban and Regional Information Systems Association U.S. Department of Interior, United States Geological Survey

(USGS), Earth Resources Observation Systems (EROS) Data Center

U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office

Focus group data were analyzed and interpreted, resulting in the preliminary draft of the competency model. Additionally,

http://www.geowdc.usm.edu


Phase Three provided a quantified matrix of the work roles, role definitions, outputs for each role, quality requirements for each output, ethical challenges for each role, and future forces for the geospatial industry.

Phase FourUsing the matrix developed above, Phase Four research activities included the development of survey questionnaires for each role and validation of the preliminary competency model by exemplars or top performers for each role. According to McLagan (1997), the use of role experts is a generally accepted way to have job experts pool their experience and expertise to define work and competencies. Phase Four allowed role experts the opportunity to validate the geospatial roles, competencies, outputs, and quality requirements defined by industry stakeholders in previous focus group sessions.

Since the deliverables (outputs) for each role are unique, separate questionnaires were required for each of the 12 geospatial technology work roles. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with role experts, or exemplars, currently working in the geospatial industry. Employees from more than 28 companies in 15 major cities across the U.S. participated as role experts. Of the 119 role experts interviewed, 67 (56%) were from the private sector and 46 (39%) represented public organizations. In addition, the researchers sought to balance Fortune 500 with small business organizations, and to include role experts working with a variety of end-user applications.

It should be noted that the research methodology did not use a random sample of geospatial technology professionals. Instead, competency modeling methodology requires a purposeful sample of qualified respondents who meet exemplar criteria. Furthermore, to ensure the integrity of the role expert data collection process, face-to-face questionnaire administration was used instead of traditional survey data collection techniques (i.e., mail, online, or phone interviews).

When presented with the preliminary list of competencies, 119 role experts in Phase Four were asked to identify the level of importance and the level of expertise for each competency required in their work role. The following scale was used to rank the importance of competencies: 0 – insignificant1 – minimal importance 2 – moderate importance 3 – somewhat important 4 – very important5 – critical

In addition, role experts were presented with checklists to validate the outputs and quality requirements that best dem-onstrate excellent performance for the role in which they had been identified as an exemplar. McLagan and Suhadolnik (1989) criteria were used to interpret the data for the final competency model. Data analysis required that at least 75% of the role experts for an individual role agree that the quality requirements were

appropriate for a specific output. Data collected from these face-to-face role expert interviews were tabulated and analyzed using SPSS to create the final model.

ResultsIndustry DefinitionA definition was written by industry stakeholders early in the process to ensure participants answered questions from the same industry perspective. Research participants included those whose primary expertise and experience was remote sensing, as well as those with primary expertise and experience in GIS. Initial fo-cus group discussions focused on the differences between remote sensing and GIS workforce requirements. However, during focus group session activities, participants recognized and determined that the workforce requirements were not remote sensing- or GIS-specific, but rather represented a broader industry domain they labeled geospatial technology.

Consensus was reached among focus group participants for the following industry definition:

Geospatial technology is an information technology field of practice that acquires, manages, interprets, integrates, displays, analyzes, or otherwise uses data focusing on the geographic, temporal, and spatial context. It also includes development and life-cycle management of information technology tools to support the above.

Geospatial Roles and Role DefinitionsThe heart and soul of the Geospatial Technology Competency Model are the roles, competencies, and outputs for geospatial work. “Competency” is defined as the knowledge, skills, and abilities an individual needs to do their job; “role” is not a job description, rather it is a grouping of competencies targeted to meet specific expectations of a job or function. An “output” is a product or service that an employee or group of employees delivers to customers, clients, colleagues, or coworkers.

As shown below in Table 1, 12 distinct work roles were identi-fied by focus groups for the geospatial technology industry.

Outputs (Deliverables) and Quality RequirementsIn addition to the 12 geospatial technology roles defined by focus group members, 138 key products or services (outputs) were identified that are a result of performing the day-to-day activities in a particular role. Also generated was a list of quality require-ments necessary to produce an excellent product or service. In other words, how will one recognize that a deliverable (output) is excellent? Role experts validated outputs and quality requirements during face-to-face interviews.

An example of an output identified in the role of “Data Acquisition” is metadata. The quality requirements for metadata identified by focus groups and validated by role experts are that metadata: ensures correct attribution, is created in a format that is compliant with company/customer policy, is comprehensive, is accurate, is in a correct/consistent format, and is compliant with


TABLE 1 Geospatial Technology Role Definitions

Applications Development Identify and develop tools and instruments to satisfy customer needs

Data Acquisition Collect geospatial and related data

Coordination Interorganizational facilitation and communication

Data Analysis and InterpretationProcess data and extract information to create products, drive conclusions, and inform decision-making reports

Data Management Catalog, archive, retrieve, and distribute geospatial data

ManagementEfficiently and effectively apply the company’s mission using financial, technical, and intellectual skills and resources to optimize the end products

MarketingIdentify customer requirements and needs, and effectively communicate those needs and requirements to the organization, as well as promote geospatial solutions

Project Management Effectively oversee activity requirements to produce the desired outcomes on time and within budget

Systems AnalysisAssess requirements for system capacities including inputs, outputs, processes, timing, and performance, as well as recommend necessary additions or adaptations

Systems ManagementIntegrate resources and develop additional resources to support spatial and temporal user requirements

TrainingAnalyze, design, and develop instructional and non-instructional interventions to provide transfer of knowledge and evaluation for performance improvement

Visualization Render data and information into visual geospatial representations

standards. For a listing of all outputs and quality requirements by role, see the Role Profiles section of the Workforce Development Models for Geospatial Technology accessible on the GeoWDC Web site http://www.geowdc.usm.edu.

CompetenciesData analysis and interpretation yielded 39 geospatial technology competencies as depicted in Table 2 below. These competencies are the key areas of knowledge and skill that enable individuals to perform geospatial technology work or to produce the outputs or key deliverables for their jobs.

For a competency to be defined as important for a specific role, a mean rating of at least 3.5 on the importance scale or a 4.0 mean rating by at least 50% of the role experts responding for a single role was required. When interpreting responses from all role experts combined, 15 competencies yielded a mean rating of at least 3.5 on the importance scale. These 15 core competencies determined to be critical for the overall geospatial technology industry are shown in Table 3 in bold print.

Geospatial technology competencies were organized into four categories: technical, business, analytical, and interpersonal (Table 3). For geospatial technology professionals to be successful in today’s marketplace, it is critical to understand that the knowl-edge, skills, and abilities required for their jobs include a blend of

technical, business, analytical, and interpersonal competencies. Not surprisingly, geospatial technology professionals do not op-erate in a technical vacuum. They are required to demonstrate competencies in all four categories depending upon the roles they occupy. This blend of technical and non-technical workforce requirements is not unique to this industry, but this blend is too often overlooked during the workforce planning process.

The final table shown (Table 4) is the Geospatial Technology Competency Model that identifies competencies in four categories required for the 12 geospatial technology roles. This matrix is a big picture view of the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed in the geospatial marketplace. For a breakdown of the competencies by role, including the level of expertise required for each com-petency by role, visit the profiles section of the previously cited report accessible at http://www.geowdc.usm.edu.

ConclusionThis article describes the methodologically rigorous approach used to develop the Geospatial Technology Competency Model. The Competency Model approach provided the best framework for defining the workforce requirements for the geospatial market-place. However, no study is without limitations. First, the authors recognize that industries are not static, and this is particularly true




TABLE 2 GEOSPATIAL TECHNOLOGY COMPETENCY DEFINITIONS

Ability to Assess Relationships Among Geospatial Technologies – examining the effects of geospatial technologies on parts of an organization, as well as the effects on the organization’s interactions with customers, suppliers, distributors, and workers

Ability to See the “Big Picture” – identifying trends and patterns that are outside a normal paradigm of the organization sources

Business Understanding – demonstrating awareness of the inner workings of business functions and how business decisions affect financial or non-financial work results

Buy-in/Advocacy – building ownership or support for change among affected individuals, groups, and other stakeholders

Cartography – organizing and communicating geographically related information in either graphic or digital form

Change Management – helping people adapt to the changes brought on by new technologies and helping them to see the value and benefits of new technologies

Coaching – helping individuals recognize and understand personal needs, values, problems, alternatives, and goals

Communication – applying effective verbal, nonverbal, and written communication methods to achieve desired results

Computer Programming Skills – being able to understand and use a set vocabulary and grammatical rules for instructing a computer to perform a specific task; knowledge of high-level languages; ability to create or revise a program

Conflict Management – helping people work together to resolve disputes through constructive processes and techniques

Cost Benefit Analysis/Return on Investment (ROI) – understanding the relative costs of each geospatial technology, or combination of geospatial technologies and assuring that the organization is receiving a good value for the dollars spent on these technologies

Creative Thinking – recognizing, exploring, and using a broad range of ideas and practices; thinking logically and creatively without undue influence from personal biases

Environmental Applications – applying GIS technologies for environmental assessment or management purposes

Ethics Modeling – modeling exemplary ethical behavior and understanding the implications of this responsibility.

Feedback Skills – communicating information, opinions, observations, and conclusions so that they are understood and can be acted upon

Geology Applications – applying GIS technologies for geological purposes

Geospatial Data Processing Tools – knowing and being able to apply the skills needed to operate currently used geospatial data processing tools

GIS Theory and Applications – understanding the theory behind GIS and being able to identify and implement modern day applications for it

Group Process Understanding – understanding how groups function; influencing people so that group, work, and individual needs are addressed

Industry Understanding – demonstrating awareness of the vision, strategy, goals, and culture of the geospatial technology industry


Knowledge Management – the efforts to systematically find, organize, and make available a company’s intellectual capital and to foster a culture of continuous learning and knowledge sharing so that organizational activities build on existing knowledge

Leadership Skills – influencing process of leaders and followers to achieve organizational objectives through change

Legal Understanding – ability to understand legal issues affecting the application of geospatial information technology

Model Building Skills – conceptualizing and developing theoretical and practical frameworks that describe complex ideas in understandable, usable ways

Organization Understanding – seeing organizations as dynamic, political, economic, and social systems that have multiple goals; using this larger perspective as a framework for understanding and influencing events and change that can impact implementation and support of geospatial technologies

Performance Analysis and Evaluation – the process of comparing actual and ideal performance in order to identify performance gaps or opportunities

Photogrammetry – recording, measuring, and plotting electromagnetic radiation data from aerial photographs and remote sensing systems against land features identified in ground control surveys, generally in order to produce planimetric, topographic, and contour maps

Problem-Solving Skills – the ability to consider alternative courses of action and select and implement appropriate solutions

Questioning – gathering information from stimulating insight in individuals and groups through use of interview, questionnaires, and other probing methods

Relationship Building Skills – establishing relationships and networks across a broad range of people and groups

Remote Sensing Theory and Applications – understanding the underlying theories related to acquiring an object without contacting it physically such as aerial photography, radar, and satellite imaging

Research Skill – selecting, developing, and using methodologies such as statistical and data collection techniques for formal inquiry

Self-Knowledge / Self-Management – knowing one’s personal values, needs, interests, style, and competencies and being able to manage their effects on others

Spatial Information Processing – the process of modeling, examining, and interpreting model results necessary for evaluating suitability and capability, for estimating and predicting, and for interpreting and understanding

Systems Thinking – identifying inputs, throughputs, and outputs of a subsystem, system, or suprasystem and apply that information to improve the application of geospatial technologies; realizing the implications of geospatial technology or many parts of an organization, process, or individual; taking steps to address the impact of applying these technologies

Technical Writing – the ability to “translate” technical information to nonspecialists

Technological Literacy – understanding and appropriately applying existing, new, or emerging technologies

Topology – understanding how map features represented by points, lines, and areas are related, with specific emphasis on the issues of connectivity and adjacency of features

Visioning – seeing the possibilities of “what can be” and inspiring a shared sense of purpose within the organization

Table 2 continued


TABLE 3Geospatial Technology Core Competencies

(Note: Core competencies are shown in bold)

Technical CompetenciesAbility to Assess Relationships Among Geospatial TechnologiesCartography Computer Programming SkillsEnvironmental ApplicationsGIS Theory and ApplicationsGeology ApplicationsGeospatial Data Processing Tools PhotogrammetryRemote Sensing Theory and ApplicationsSpatial Information ProcessingTechnical Writing Technological LiteracyTopology

Business CompetenciesAbility to See the “Big Picture”Business UnderstandingBuy-in/AdvocacyChange Management Cost Benefit Analysis/ROI Ethics ModelingIndustry UnderstandingLegal UnderstandingOrganization Understanding Performance Analysis and EvaluationVisioning

Analytical CompetenciesCreative ThinkingKnowledge Management: Model Building SkillsProblem-Solving SkillsResearch SkillSystems Thinking

Interpersonal CompetenciesCoachingCommunicationConflict Management:Feedback SkillsGroup Process UnderstandingLeadership SkillsQuestioningRelationship Building SkillsSelf-Knowledge/Self-Management

for the geospatial industry. The competency model provides a baseline from which to build as the industry continues to evolve. One criticism of competency assessments is how accurate and comprehensive they are no matter how carefully developed. In-evitably, there were intangible and unmeasured components of every role required that were not captured. Those familiar only with traditional job and task analyses and unfamiliar with using competency-based performance approaches will more than likely misunderstand the intent and purpose of the Competency Model if time and effort is not made to understand workforce planning processes. Finally, the breadth and depth of end-user applica-tions for geospatial technologies continues to expand. While the researchers developed an intentional focus on a limited number of end-user applications–albeit the most widely used applications at the time–there are now 12 defined federal applications for geospatial technologies (http://esnetwork.org) that would provide a more comprehensive framework for study.

The participation from industry, governmental, and educa-tional community representatives was key to this research initia-tive. These partnerships are consistent with NASA’s commitment to create a customer/industry driven model and to utilize existing resources to create systemic change in the way students and the incumbent workforce are trained and retrained.

Current efforts are underway to make an online tool avail-able as a self-assessment to determine an individual’s key role

of interest or practice for the geospatial industry. The results of the assessment will provide a framework for an individual’s career development. An additional use of the tool is to help hu-man resource managers find and retain geospatial professionals. The GTCM online assessment tool will be available at http://geowdc.info. Researchers are also developing partnerships with other federal agencies to integrate the GTCM with the existing workforce development infrastructure. The value of the Geospa-tial Technology Competency Model will ultimately be measured by its implementation as a tool for performance management, employee recruitment and selection, career development, and as a curriculum framework for training and education.

http://esnetwork.org

http://geowdc.info

http://geowdc.info


Table 4Geospatial Technology Competency Model©

ROLES

Appl

icat

ions

Dev

elop

men

t

Coo

rdin

atio

n

Dat

a Ac

quisi

tion

Dat

a A

naly

sis

Dat

a M

anag

emen

t

Man

agem

ent

Mar

ketin

g

Proj

ect M

anag

emen

t

Syst

ems A

naly

sis

Syst

ems M

anag

emen

t

Trai

ning

Visu

aliz

atio

n

CO

MPE

TEN

CIE

S

Tech

nica

l

Ability to Assess Relationships Among Geospatial Technologies

Cartography

Computer Programming Skills

Environmental Applications

GIS Theory and Applications

Geology Applications

Geospatial Data Processing Tools

Photogrammetry

Remote Sensing Theory and Applications

Spatial Information Processing

Technical Writing

Technological Literacy

Topology

Busi

ness

Ability to see the “Big Picture”

Business Understanding

Buy-in/Advocacy

Change Management

Cost Benefit Analysis / ROI

Ethics Modeling

Industry Understanding

Legal Understanding

Organization Understanding

Performance Analysis and Evaluation

Visioning

Anal

ytic

al

Creative Thinking

Knowledge Management

Model Building Skills

Problem-Solving Skills

Research Skill

Systems Thinking

Inte

rper

sona

l

Coaching

Communication

Conflict Management

Feedback Skills

Group Process Understanding

Leadership Skills

Questioning

Relationship Building Skills

Self-Knowledge/Self-Management

30 URISA Journal • Vol. 15, No. 1 • 2003 URISA Journal • Kelsey, Becker 31

About The Authors

Cyndi Gaudet Dr. Cyndi Gaudet is Coordinator of Workforce Training and Development program in the School of Engineering Technology at the University of Southern Mississippi and the Director of the Geospatial Workforce Development Center. Gaudet’s professional efforts include developing and maintaining a competent workforce, determining the most appropriate academic preparation for training professionals, and determining the impact of technology on performance and learning in the workplace.

Corresponding Address:The University of Southern MississippiP.O. Box 5137, Hattiesburg, MS 39406 (phone: (601) 266-4896) or at [email protected]

Heather Annulis is an Assistant Professor of Workforce Training and Development in the School of Engineering Technology at The University of Southern Mississippi (USM). Annulis is co-principal investigator of the NASA-sponsored National Workforce Development Education and Training Initiative to help develop the geospatial workforce. She is also conducting research in conjunction with USM’s GeoSpatial Workforce Development Center.

Corresponding Address:The University of Southern MississippiP.O. Box 5137Hattiesburg, MS 39406 or at [email protected]

Jon Carr Dr. Jon Carr is an Assistant Professor of Management at The University of Southern Mississippi, and an associate with the USM Workforce Training and Development Program. Carr’s interests include organizational behavior, workforce measurement, and entrepreneurship. He currently provides research support for the GeoSpatial Workforce Development Center and the NASA-sponsored National Workforce Development Education and Training Initiative.

Corresponding Address:The University of Southern MississippiP.O. Box 5077Hattiesburg, MS 39406 or at [email protected]

Acknowledgements

The University of Southern Mississippi reserves its ownership and proprietary rights of the Geospatial Technology Competency Model©. This material may be reproduced, redistributed, and used for educational purposes, but not for commercial or monetary

gain. The Geospatial Technology Competency Model© was de-veloped at The University of Southern Mississippi under NASA Contract NAS13-98033.

References

Bohlander, G., S. Scott, and A. Sherman, 2001, Training and Development. In Managing Human Resources (Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing), 12th Edition.

Briscoe, J. and D. Hall, 1999, An Alternative Approach and New Guide-lines for Practice. Organizational Dynamics, 28(2), 37-52.

Dalton, M., 1997, Are Competency Models a Waste? Training and Development, 51, 46-49.

Decker, P. and M. Strader, Beyond JCAHO: Using Competency Models to Improve Healthcare Organizations, 75(1), 23-29.

Gilley, J. and A. Maycunich, 2000, Performance Consulting. In Organizational Learning, Performance and Change (Cam-bridge, MA: Perseus).

Goodchild, M. and K. Kemp, 1992, GIS Accreditation: What Are the Options? ACSM Bulletin, 140, 44-47.

Huxhold, W., 1991, The GIS Profession: Titles, Pay, Qualifica-tions. Geo Info Systems. March, 12-22.

Ingalls, J., 1979, Throw Away Your Job Descriptions and Write Competency Models. Training, 16(4), 32-34.

LeBleu, R. and R. Sobkowiak, 1995, New Workforce Competency Models. Information Systems Management, 12(3), 7-13.

Lucia, A. and R. Lepsinger, 1999. The Art and Science of Com-petency Models (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer).

Mathis, R. and J. Jackson, 2000, Job Analysis and the Changing Nature of Jobs. In Human Resource Management (Cincin-nati, OH: South-Western College Publishing), 9th Edition.

McLagan, P., 1980, Competency Models. Training and Develop-ment Journal, 34(12), 22-26.

McLagan, P., 1997, Competencies: The Next Generation. Train-ing and Development, 51(5), 41.

McLagan, P., 1996, Great Ideas Revisited. Training and Develop-ment, 50(1), 60-65.

McLagan, P. and D. Suhadolnik, 1989, Models for HRD Practice: The Research Report (Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press).

Mirabile, R., 1997, Everything You Wanted to Know About Competency Modeling. Training and Development, 51.

NASA, 2001, NWDETI Business Implementation Plan. John C. Stennis Space Center, Office of Education (Monograph).


Robinson, D. and J. Robinson, 1996, Performance Consulting: Mov-ing Beyond Training (New York, NY: Berrett-Koehler).

Sanchez, J., 2000, The Art and Science of Competency Models. Personnel Psychology, 53, 509-511.

Wikle, T., 1999, GIS Education Through Certificate Programs. URISA Journal, 11(2), 53-60.

Zemke, R. and S. Zemke, 2000, Putting Competencies to Work. In Training and Development Yearbook (Paramus, NJ: Prentice-Hall).


IntroductionTypical online courses present content in a linear fashion, es-sentially replicating what a student would receive in a lecture-based face-to-face environment. Students are generally directed to move from module to module in these courses in a strict journey from simple to more complex concepts. This is especially typical in the science curriculum, where the common concep-tion is that one cannot explore sophisticated issues without the proper foundation. In addition, as David Perkins pointed out, science (among other subjects) has evolved a “trivial pursuit” educational philosophy, where the accumulation of facts across a breadth of topics has become an accepted principle of a good education (Perkins 1992). This article discusses an innovative approach to online science education that challenges these common techniques and assumptions through its non-linear hub-and-spokes design and the use of a research-level dataset embedded in a GIS environment.

The general concept of “environmental sustainability” refers to the necessary balance between human wants and needs and the capacity of the natural systems of the earth. A more specific definition is elusive as the perspectives of diverse disciplines (i.e., oceanography, architecture, public health, and economics) all con-tribute to the concept and have their own spin on the underlying principles needed to construct a more complete definition.

For those interested in exploring the crucial issues related to preserving and maintaining the global environment, the Cen-ter for New Media Teaching and Learning (CCNMTL, http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu) in collaboration with the Center for In-ternational Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN, http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu) created a conference-style e-seminar (Figure 1) that allows students to participate in nine online mod-ules on environmental sustainability from varying perspectives. As a means for connecting these perspectives, participants perform a series of related activities using a geographic information system (GIS) tool based on a dataset known as the Environmental Sus-

Environmental Sustainability Through GIS: An Online E-Seminar for Higher Education

Ryan Kelsey and Mark Becker

Abstract: This article discusses the development of an online e-seminar that uses a geographic information system as the basis for its major activities. Students of the seminar explore the concept of environmental sustainability in a conference-style format with the perspectives of nine Columbia University faculty members affiliated with the Center for International Earth Science Information Network. Students experience innovative presentations from each faculty member, participate in online forums, and complete online activities using a customized mapping tool with data from the Environmental Sustainability Index. The activities are designed to engage the student as an active participant in exploring environmental sustainability.

tainability Index (ESI) and communicate with each other using an online asynchronous bulletin board forum.

The ESI was created through a partnership of the World Economic Forum, the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, and CIESIN as a tool for scientific researchers in multiple disciplines. The index is an effort to illuminate the specific com-ponents that are crucial to environmental sustainability, and, at the same time, to integrate disparate elements into a synoptic view of sustainability around the world. It does so by combining a wide range of social and environmental measurements in a hierarchical structure, creating layers of data that provide an increasingly general view of broad issues of environmental sustainability. The ESI data-set is used in this e-seminar as the data behind a global GIS Map Viewer used for a variety of activities in each learning module. The structure of the ESI dataset is discussed later in this article.

This e-seminar was completed as part of two larger Co-lumbia University initiatives. One initiative, led by CCNMTL, is dedicated to improving the purposeful use of new media in higher education. The second initiative is led by Digital Knowl-edge Ventures, the administers of Columbia Interactive (http:

Figure 1. The launch screen for the e-seminar.

http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/

http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/

http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/

http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/

http://ci.columbia.edu/


//ci.columbia.edu), and the purpose is to extend the intellectual resources of the University to the world and bring the collaborative energy of a worldwide audience to Columbia University through the creation and support of digital exchanges of knowledge, in-formation, and ideas.

E-Seminar Description and DesignEnvironmental Sustainability: Perspectives on the World is an on-line e-seminar designed for adult participants (typically university students or university-educated people) interested in a science-based non-credit learning experience (Environmental Sustainabil-ity: Perspectives on the World is available to anyone for a small fee at http://ci.columbia.edu and at http://www.fathom.com). The seminar is set up with nine modules from different disciplines that can be experienced in any order. To provide a general framework, there are two groups, “Part One: Environmental Systems,” which contains four modules that focus on monitoring the interaction between natural environments and human actions, and “Part Two: Human Responses,” which contains five modules focusing on action plans for fostering sustainable development. As seen

in Figures 2 and 3, each group or part is designed as a hub-and-spokes set, with the hub acting as the introduction and the nodes on the end of each spoke as the individual modules that can be completed in any order.

A different Columbia-affiliated faculty member or researcher leads each of the nine modules, and each contributor is from a different discipline. Each module contains a sample of the contributor’s major research interest, video interviews with the contributor on relevant topics, and activities using the ESI Map Viewer tool.

In Dr. Kenny Broad’s module (Figure 4), students view a discussion of his observations of El Niño’s effects on Peruvian fishing communities. Then they perform activities related to Peru using the ESI dataset in the Map Viewer to further explore the ideas and relate them to the other modules.

Because students can work through the modules in any sequence, a set of five overarching questions were designed for consideration throughout the experience: How would you define “environmental sustainability”? How

does your definition compare to others? Which environmental systems do you feel are most

important within the general framework of environmental sustainability? How do you think those systems are faring today?

What are the critical steps that people should be taking toward environmental sustainability?

What are the lessons evident in environmental data? Do you think datasets such as the ESI represent environmental challenges, or would you recommend another approach?

What is your perception of environmental sustainability, both as a general principle, and as a practical strategy? Do you feel it is succeeding or failing, and why? These questions are written generally such that students

can generate answers after completing any number of modules in the public online asynchronous forum attached to the course. The intention is that they will revisit their answers and reply to other students’ comments as they proceed through more expert

Figure 2. Introduction to Part One, which focuses on Environmental Systems. Note the hub-and-spokes scheme with four nodes

representing the modules in this section.

Figure 3. Introduction to Part Two, which focuses on Human Responses. Note the hub-and-spokes scheme with five nodes

representing the modules in this section.

Figure 4. A view of the module by Kenny Broad on El Niño and the Peruvian Fishing Community.

http://ci.columbia.edu/

http://ci.columbia.edu/ci/eseminars/1401_detail.html

http://www.fathom.com


perspectives and activities. This approach is an attempt to model scientific thinking in a cyclical structure of positing theories, exploring data and experimenting, revising one’s theories, and defending one’s ideas.

ESI Map Viewer and AssignmentsWhen students begin an activity in the ESI Map Viewer (the ESI Map Viewer was developed in ArcGIS and served using ArcIMS), they see a global map and a color key showing the rankings of all the countries in the ESI (Figure 5). Students are then directed to select particular data layers that show more specific details relevant to the activity. For Dr. Broad’s section, students focus in on South America (Figure 6) to compare the sustainable condi-tions in countries neighboring Peru.

When examining a particular region, students can use the zoom feature to see more detail on particular regions of the world and examine data tables displaying the scores for selected coun-tries. Students can also access visual representations of the ESI rankings for a group of countries (Figure 7). These graphs are especially helpful when trying to distinguish between countries with similar overall rankings that may have very different means for achieving their rank. For example, one might note in Figure 7 how Bolivia and Chile have nearly identical ESI rankings (#30 and #31, respectively), but their strengths and weaknesses are clearly different as evidenced by Bolivia’s very low “Reducing Hu-man Vulnerability” score versus Chile’s relatively balanced scores across all components. Students examining this issue might then explore the indicators and variables in the various components to see what contributed to these countries’ differences, whereas if they relied only on the overall scores, students might assume these neighbors operate very similarly.

One method for exploring indicators and variables is to use the Query feature for analyzing the ESI dataset (Figure 8). This search tool allows students to select a particular variable and set up a search query string, which when executed will look through the ESI dataset for matches and present the results in a data table.

In Dr. Broad’s module, for example, students are encouraged to perform searches on the governmental and social aspects of human activity that contribute to environmental sustainability and compare Peru with other countries’ scores in these areas. Two variables of particular interest in this case are “Stringency and Consistency of Environmental Regulations,” a value determined through a survey published in The Global Competitiveness Re-port by Oxford University Press and “Reducing Corruption,” a standard value of government corruption published by the World Bank. Using the search tool, students can look for a correlation between these variables in an effort to explain how bureaucratic systems impact the environment.

ESI Data StructureAs illustrated in Figure 9, the ESI begins with data at the Variable level with over 60 separate measurements drawn from a wide range of data sources worldwide. These Variables include many different types of data, such as chemical measurements of air and water pollution, assessments in areas such as biodiversity water scarcity created by university research institutes, international non-profit

Figure 5. A view of the top level of the ESI Map Viewer.

Figure 6. A zoomed in view of South America in the ESI Map Viewer. Note the data for Argentina shown along the bottom.

Figure 7. Radargraphs of six South American countries showing their ESI overall rank and score as well as a breakdown into the five major

components of the ESI.

Figure 8. The search query interface.


organizations, and survey responses from governmental officials regarding the state of legal and social systems.

The Variables are then grouped and combined to create 22 Indicators, which give a more general overview of a single topic relevant to environmental sustainability. Examples of Indicators include the overall level of air quality within a nation’s borders, the responsiveness of national businesses to environmental concerns, and the vulnerability of local populations to health effects from environmental conditions.

These Indicators are subsequently combined in two ways: One method groups them into five broad categories, called Components, which reflect a nation’s overall environmental sustainability in the areas of Environmental Systems, Reducing Environmental Stresses, Reducing Human Vulnerability, Social and Institutional Capacity, and Global Stewardship.

The second method combines all 22 Indicators into a single number—the overall ESI Score—a ranking of the world’s nations on a scale of 0 to 100 (the higher the better) in terms of their environmental sustainability. Thus, the ESI proceeds from the most specific, quantifiable expressions of a range of factors cru-cial to environmental sustainability towards a single, comparable standard that allows comparison of most of the world’s nations.

ImplementationTo date, more than 65 users have signed up for Environmen-tal Sustainability through Columbia Interactive, ranking it the 12th most popular e-seminar on that e-learning portal

(available for a small fee at http://ci.columbia.edu and at http://www.fathom.com).

It has been difficult to measure the effectiveness of the site, as there has been almost no contact between users and the main-tainers of the e-seminar. The fact that there have been almost no technical problems reported is a good sign of quality technical development, but there has been almost no use of the course forum, which indicates either students are comfortable operating

Figure 9. Data structure of the ESI.

independently or that they are struggling with the complexity of the content to the point that they do not feel comfortable shar-ing their thoughts.

We will continue to monitor use patterns in the coming months to determine whether redesign of the course is necessary to try to increase communication between participants. However, a more thorough evaluation of the effectiveness of this e-seminar is warranted. As a start, an evaluation could attempt to validate many of the design and curriculum choices that were made in an effort to answer these questions with student participants:

In what way can students of the e-seminar… articulate their own definition of environmental sustainability

and evaluate other people’s definitions? discuss environmental systems and human responses

examples provided by each faculty member intelligently? build a case for and against the use of datasets such as the

ESI?

Answers to these questions and others would undoubtedly point us toward a host of issues that we could take on in future re-development.

Discussion of GIS Tools in EducationCCNMTL and CIESIN are currently developing several more educational environments, with GIS tools playing a key role in the teaching and learning process. One new project, known as Poles Together, is a face-to-face seminar that leads students through the journeys of polar explorers and related datasets through the use of online polar projection map viewers. Columbia University’s Urban Planning department has an Urban Design Studio that is also collaborating with us in the development of an online study environment for collecting and sharing information around haz-ard mitigation in particularly vulnerable cities. A student group recently completed an project on Istanbul where students were charged with identifying earthquake prevention and response measures. For this project, student-collected data were loaded into map viewers and shared between New York City and Istanbul.

In all of these projects, CCNMTL is concerned with the edu-cational effectiveness of GIS teaching and learning environments. To that end, it is important that GIS tools evolve communications and multi-user features that foster better student-to-student col-laboration as well as faculty-to-student communication. Numer-ous studies point out that augmenting constructivist learning environments with communications tools benefits students in many ways. As one example, a study by Daniel Edelson et al. (1996) points out that while “(c)onstructivist learning environ-ments have made great strides in moving away from the knowl-edge transmission model of learning toward an active learner model…active learning can be further enhanced through social interaction.” For the environmental sustainability e-seminar, CCNMTL relied on an external course forum system that has not been effective in this course to date. Alternatively, if students could annotate actual data in the GIS tool or post comments in a bulletin board system that was linked to particular data objects

http://ci.columbia.edu/ci/eseminars/1401_detail.html




or layers in the GIS environment, courses could be designed with more specific collaboration assignments that would foster more focused tool use and would result in better student engagement with the content. Instructors could see more direct evidence of student work and make comments of their own to guide them further while they are still immersed in the GIS environment. As it stands now, most instructors have to treat GIS tools as “black boxes,” which limits their ability to gauge student progress and engagement with the environment.

Still, one cannot deny the current power of GIS to bring research-level datasets to the educational community. Providing online access to sophisticated mapping tools that can be imple-mented quickly into curriculum is a large step that should not be taken lightly. Our hope is that developers of GIS authoring tools will consider the needs of the educational community in future versions of its products. If done well, one can imagine enormous benefits for students in all disciplines, who will gain critical spatial data analytic and problem-solving skills and may very well come to rely on GIS in their career pursuits, whatever that chosen profession may be.

The process of designing and developing this e-seminar has shown us that there are great possibilities for innovative online GIS-based educational environments, but there are many more questions than answers about the most effective way to design and implement them. Our goal with this project was to create a unique online approach for participants to learn environmental sustainability concepts through focusing students on experiencing multiple perspectives and performing activities with an authentic dataset. Our next challenge is to examine the student-faculty experience in this e-seminar and our other GIS projects in order to be able to more confidently assert the benefits for faculty and students to develop and use these environments in their teaching and learning.

About the Authors

Ryan Kelsey is an Educational Technologist at the Columbia New Media Teaching and Learning and a doctoral fellow and instructor in Communications and Education at Teachers College, Columbia University. His research interests include the use of simulations and GIS in higher education, especially in the area of science.

Corresponding Address:Ryan KelseyColumbia UniversityCenter for New Media Teaching and [email protected]

Mark Becker is a Geographic Information Systems specialist with over 8 years experience in the field. He is the Head of the Geospatial Technologies Section for Center for International Earth Science Information Network a part of Columbia University’s Earth Institute developing GIS and Remote Sensing applications to facilitate interdisciplinary research between the physical earth and the social sciences.

Corresponding Address:Mark BeckerColumbia UniversityCenter for International Earth Science Information [email protected]

Acknowledgements

Environmental Sustainability: Perspectives on the World was produced by the Columbia Center for New Media Teaching and Learning and the Center for International Earth Science Information Network. The executive producers of this e-seminar were Frank Moretti and Maurice Matiz (CCNMTL) and Roberta Miller (CIESIN). The faculty producer was Marc Levy (CIESIN). Faculty contributors were Kenny Broad, Peter de Menocal, David Downie, Sally Findley, Geoffrey Heal, Stephanie Pfirman, Dani-elle Smoller, Joel Towers, and Iddo Wernick. The project manager was Ryan Kelsey (CCNMTL). Mark Becker led the CIESIN GIS production team with Edwin Atkins, and Maarten Tromp. Ed-win Atkins, Ryan Kelsey, and Marc Meyer developed the course content. Interface architecture, design, and Web development were by Zarina Mustapha with the assistance of Paul Seigmund. Stephanie Ogden and Gerard Zoehfeld produced the video with assistance from Ndlela Nkobi. The media panel interface was designed by Zarina Mustapha and Maurice Matiz.

References

Edelson, D., R. Pea, and L. Gomez, 1996, Constructivism in the Collaboratory. In Wilson, B. (Ed.), Constructivist Learning Environments: Case Studies in Instructional Design (Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications).

Perkins, D., 1992, Smart Schools: Better Thinking and Learning for Every Child (New York, NY: The Free Press).

mailto:[email protected]


URISA Journal • Berendsen, Hamerlinck,Wayne 37

URISA Journal • Berendsen, Hamerlinck,Wayne 37

IntroductionMetadata is emerging as an increasingly important concept in the field of geographic information science (GIScience). Commonly defined as “data about data” (Milstead and Feldman 1999), meta-data, in the GIScience context, refers specifically to descriptive information pertaining to geospatial data (Federal Geographic Data Committee 1997). Metadata concepts and implementation issues are a growing topic of GIScience research (Dutton 1996, Plewe 1997, Bowker 2000, Hunter and Masters 2000, Kennedy 2000, Norheim et al. 2000, Sengupta 2000, Tsou and Buttenfield 2000, Vert 2000, Spery et al. 2001). University researchers are dependent upon metadata to coordinate collaborative research efforts (Porter et al. 1997) and to support analysis (Meitner et al. 2001). Furthermore, in the professional arena, positions requir-ing metadata production skills are becoming more common, and geographic information system (GIS) software now incorporates metadata creation and management tools as core functionality. Both GIScience researchers in an academic environment as well as students and professionals training to meet GIS workforce re-quirements must be schooled in the principles and application of geospatial metadata. As a result, the need for metadata education has expanded beyond its traditional place in short professional workshops to a core requirement within GIScience curricula.

Why this demand for metadata knowledge and skills? In the academic research arena, metadata is a critical component of in-formation science, one of the parent fields of GIScience (Milstead and Feldman 1999). Data discovery, information processing, and distributed information networking all require metadata in some form (Tsou and Buttenfield 2000, Eliot 2001). In the professional arena, the shift in the geospatial community from that of data producer to data consumer is largely responsible (Gaudet et al. 2001). Over the last decade, organizations have committed sig-

Framework and Strategies for Integrating Metadata Concepts with Geographic Information Science Curricula

Margo E. Berendsen, Jeffrey D. Hamerlinck, and Lynda Wayne

Abstract: Metadata is emerging as an increasingly important component of geographic information science research and educa-tion. Metadata should not be viewed merely as a content standard or software application, but rather as a philosophy of how to approach information management and decision-making tasks. The need for metadata education has expanded beyond the traditional short course or professional seminar to one necessitating the integration of metadata concepts throughout a compre-hensive curriculum. The purpose of this article is to outline a pedagogic framework for such integration and offer accompanying strategies for increasing the scope of metadata education. As background, challenges faced in metadata education versus training are reviewed, followed by considerations for developing a metadata integration framework based on different course types, meta-data topics, varying levels of detail, and student-centered learning designs. Two specific integration strategies are presented with a focus on desired learning outcomes associated with different end-user groups. Finally, opportunities are identified for linking metadata concepts to the existing National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis core curriculum for geographic information science.

nificant resources to the development of geospatial data and are now faced with vast data holdings but few mechanisms to lever-age their investments through data retrieval and re-use (Guptill 1999). The tremendous growth in markets for data discovery, data warehousing, and decision support systems has resulted in greater awareness of the need for metadata to deal with all the complexity inherent in finding, organizing, and transforming data into information for daily consumption and decision making (Sherman 1997).

Education is key to building the metadata knowledge re-quired to support decisions, as well as to establish data product requirements, to implement data quality processes, and to provide for interoperability among available data products. However, there appears to be little opportunity for students of GIScience and systems to build the metadata comprehension required to address these needs. Educators are often reluctant to create metadata as part of their own research, much less promote metadata within their classroom (Meitner et al. 2001). A recent ad hoc e-mail survey of University Consortium of Geographic Information Sci-ence (UCGIS) educators indicates that, while some GIS courses include metadata-related lectures and exercises, few have addressed the full range of metadata implementation issues fundamental to GIS (Wayne 2001). The current approaches to include metadata as an independent lecture topic reflect the professional GIS data development process in which metadata are generally created as an addendum effort. These methods tend to externalize the metadata from the data and can result in “data entropy,” the loss of critical information about data over time (Michener 1998).

The purpose of this article is to address some of the obstacles related to metadata education and to outline a pedagogic frame-work for integrating concepts of metadata into existing GIScience curricula. Three interrelated strategies for such an integration

38 URISA Journal • Vol. 15, No. 1 • 2003 URISA Journal • Berendsen, Hamerlinck,Wayne 39

are presented, based on research conducted by Berendsen and Hamerlinck (2000) and Wayne (2001). This research stemmed from current GIScience education priorities identified by UCGIS (Kemp and Wright 1997), which recognize that greater attention needs to be given to professional GIS education programs and the specific needs of this end-user group. Current GIScience curricula run the risk of being considered irrelevant by GIS practitioners because of their “one-size-fits-all” education model (University Consortium of Geographic Information Science 1997). Adjusting the GIScience curriculum to better support the educational needs of different users opens the door for opportunities to increase the scope of metadata education.

Metadata Education Versus TrainingSimilar challenges exist in geographic information systems and metadata education, in that both are accompanied by a profusion of technical terms and concepts as well as a prevalence of software tools to perform functions for data (or metadata) creation, man-agement, and use. Studies have shown that in order to successfully teach GIS, it is important to find a balance between education (with concepts and principles) and training (acquiring skills for operating a specific software) (Piscedda 1994). One approach is theory-driven and lacks skills training; the other is technology-driven and lacks theory.

Since software trends are rapidly changing and unpredictable, it makes little sense to use them as a basis for curriculum design. Certainly there will always be a need for short courses and train-ing workshops to keep up with software changes (Kemp 1991, Rogerson 1992), but metadata education, like GIS education, needs to develop beyond this type of limited and isolated training. Mastery of software does not necessarily equate with mastery of a subject (Marble 1998).

Studies on the introduction of new technologies within institutions offer valuable insight into the education versus training issue. Introduction of new technology is not just a technical matter (Campbell 1999). The successful introduc-tion of new technologies or new methodologies requires the ability to overcome management and institutional obstacles, as well as the technical problems (Dale 1991). Training skills alone are not enough; potential users must understand how the skills relate to larger institutional concerns (Heywood and Petch 1991). For instance, recent studies have shown that orga-nizations participating in metadata implementation programs recognize the value of metadata, but are reluctant to commit time to developing metadata skills because it would take too much time away from more important or necessary endeavors and responsibilities (Gelbman and Mathys 1999, Norheim et al. 2000). Gelbman and Mathys stressed that “any long-term approach to metadata implementation requires cooperation with educational institutions. Agencies with data access is-sues and metadata must establish contact with the respective departments at universities, colleges and technical schools

to discuss measures to incorporate metadata into classroom material” (1999:15).

Metadata and The Evolving Field of Giscience A 2001 survey of UCGIS members indicates that GIScience educators recognize the importance of metadata education but have little room in their already overburdened GIS courses to ac-commodate added lectures on metadata principles and practices. As a result, usually only the importance and value of metadata are addressed (Wayne 2001). Respondents also cited the complex-ity and transitional status of metadata standards in the United States and internationally, and the lack of supporting materials such as text/readings, lab exercises, and case studies as further im-pediments to including metadata education within their courses. The survey concluded that although metadata is fundamental to the “business case” perspective in which issues of data quality, data investments, data redundancy, and management efficiency prevail, from an academic perspective it is less significant than fundamental GIS concepts of topology, spatial representation, and associated technical and societal issues (Wayne 2001).

A major conclusion of a joint 1999 Federal Geographic Data Committee/UCGIS-sponsored workshop on metadata educa-tion was the need to integrate metadata throughout GIScience education, instead of as an individual lecture topic or compo-nent (Berendsen and Hamerlinck 2000). Integrating metadata throughout a GIS curriculum provides opportunity to tie in meta-data with other important GIS issues and concepts. For instance, the foundational conceptual elements for a GIScience curriculum (such as data quality, projections, scale, and error propagation) are all topics that lead directly or indirectly to metadata elements. Forer and Unwin (1999) suggest that GIScience encompasses not only the technical and conceptual underpinnings of the use of geographic data, but also the social, legal, and ethical issues, which are arguably of greater importance and equal complexity. Many of these issues also tie into importance of metadata as a means of cataloging GIS data and a measure of the fitness-of-use of data for particular GIS applications. Educational units on these topics open the door to weave metadata into curricula, especially through exercises involving downloading, converting, transforming, and using different data sources together for the sake of analysis. By addressing different aspects of metadata at different intervals throughout a course, technical information overload can be minimized and the importance of metadata as it relates to multiple aspects of GIScience can be maximized. With this approach, metadata is no longer viewed as a task, but as an integral component of geospatial data, GIS applications, and elements of GIScience research.


A Framework for Metadata Education A framework for integrating metadata education the GIScience curriculum may be constructed based on the following questions as modified from Unwin (1997):

Should metadata be taught differently in different types of GIS-related courses?

Where could metadata potentially be included in each type of course?

At what level of detail should metadata be included (breadth vs. depth)?

How should metadata be taught (content-centered vs. student-centered learning)?

Existing GIS-related course content and materials were reviewed in 1999-2000 to help answer these pedagogical questions (Berend-sen and Hamerlinck 2000). The starting place for the review was the National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (NCGIA) Core Curriculum for Geographic Information Systems (NCGIA 2000), NCGIA Core Curriculum for Technical Pro-grams (NCGIA 1996), and online materials for the Geographer’s Craft (Foote 1997). In addition, links to other online course ma-terials are accessed through the University of Colorado’s Virtual Geography Department and through UCGIS member institution profiles. Only course information and materials available online were included in the review as the project timeframe did not al-low for contacting individual departments or faculty to request hard-copy materials. In many cases, this meant that information was incomplete or possibly not up to date. While the review was confined to materials catalogued by four Internet-only sources (NCGIA, Geographer’s Craft, Virtual Geography Department, and UCGIS), it is representative of a broad range of different course types, including traditional university courses, GIS cer-tificate courses, distance-learning courses, community college courses, and professional-type “short” courses.

Should Metadata be Taught Differently in Different Types of GIS-Related Courses? A total of 145 courses were reviewed from 60 different educa-tional institutions. The majority of these courses only had course outlines and syllabi available online for review; 34% also had online lecture materials available and 29% of the courses had laboratory exercises available. The courses were classified into 10 broad categories of course types: Geographic Information/Map Use Introduction to GIScience Advanced GIScience: Issues and Applications Advanced GIScience: Spatial Analysis and/or Technical

Issues Advanced GIS: Software-Specific Courses in Related Disciplines using GIS for Applications Introduction to Cartography

Introduction to Remote Sensing Global Positioning Systems Short Courses or Professional Courses

Of these, the most common course type was a basic “Introduction to GIS” or “Introduction to GIScience” course (46 examples). GIS applications/issues courses were the next most common (24 examples), followed by “Geographic Information/Map Use” courses (21 examples).

Each course type offers different opportunities for integrating metadata. Typically, the large amounts of conceptual information covered in introductory course limit the amount of time avail-able for covering metadata, but its importance can be practically demonstrated in exercises and/or student projects. One advantage with the large number of topics addressed in introductory courses is that the relation of metadata to a great breadth of topics can be emphasized. Advanced courses typically focus in more detail on a few topic areas, providing more opportunity to cover metadata in depth than in introductory courses.

Where Could Metadata Potentially Be Included in Each Type of Course? Of 145 reviewed courses, 48 (33%) made explicit reference to metadata either within the course outline or within course materi-als (Berendsen and Hamerlinck 2000). The number of courses including metadata is probably higher than this, as metadata could be addressed in the course without being explicitly identified in the course outline. Of the 48 courses that dealt with metadata, in 22 courses the subject was only briefly mentioned as part of a lecture, lab, or as an exam question (“describe what metadata is and five components of it”). In the other 26 classes, metadata was dealt with in more detail, usually within a laboratory exercise or as part of a class discussion. Most of the laboratory exercises dealt with finding appropriate data and downloading it off the Internet, requiring the ability to read and interpret metadata.

Many other course topics have the potential to make direct or indirect reference to metadata. Data quality is a major com-ponent of a complete metadata report, and this is a topic that was dealt with in 70% of the introductory courses reviewed, 52% of the geographic information/map use courses, 59% of related discipline courses, and 50% of GIS applications/issues courses. Metadata is also critical to finding and evaluating data sources, and this topic is also frequently covered in GIS-related courses. Other topics, such as standards, ethics, implementation issues, future trends in GIS, and decision making (e.g., GIS and decision support systems), do not appear as often but still offer additional means to integrate metadata as well as to help students realize the extensive, far-reaching implications of metadata.

At What Level of Detail Should Metadata be Included (Breadth vs. Depth)? Within GIScience curriculum, balancing breadth and depth is one of the most difficult challenges (Unwin 1997). Breadth al-


lows inclusion of a range of scientific topics, societal problems, managerial issues, and legal and ethical questions arising from use of GIS. Depth may lead to thorough examinations of only a few topics such as database management, interface programming, data structures, and statistical algorithms. As metadata is integrated within the GIScience curriculum, opportunities must be explored to expand beyond basic awareness to include both breadth (its relationship to standards, digital libraries, GIS implementation, and decision-support) and depth (its relationship to database prin-ciples, quantification and communication of error/uncertainty, and fitness-of-use). Integration of metadata into GIScience topics already covered in either breadth or depth provides the key to enhancing existing educational content without actually having to add or substitute a great deal of new information.

How Should Metadata Be Taught (Content-Centered vs. Student-Centered Learning)? Research has shown that content is not the major influence in student learning. What students actually learn depends to a large extent on individual goals and learning processes (Unwin 1997). In the past, metadata education pedagogy has focused almost entirely on passing on content through lectures or readings, but lessons learned from GIS education show that content cannot be successfully learned and integrated into standard professional practice without employing a range of appropriate teaching methods (Jenkins 1991).

In contrast to a content-centered learning model, a student-centered learning model is based on examining individual student needs. Over the last 10 years, considerable work has been ac-complished in developing flexible curriculum materials, teaching methods, and tools to foster this approach in GIScience education. Early examples of flexible curricula include the seminal NCGIA Core Curriculum for Geographic Information Systems (Kemp and Goodchild 1991) and Raper and Green’s GISTutor (1992). Developing curricula with multiple interrelated paths for students with different needs and objectives is the goal of the UCGIS curricula (Marble 1999). Recently, efforts have shifted to World Wide Web–based resources such as the ESRI Virtual Campus and Pennsylvania State University’s World Campus program.

These examples range from loosely structured course resources to detailed self-paced tutorials for learning-specific topics. For instance, instructors can pick and choose among the materials offered by the NCGIA Core Curriculum for Geographic Information Systems in order to develop courses suited specifi-cally for their own students. The NCGIA Core Curriculum for Technical Programs (NCGIA 1996) provides specific learning outcomes based on a desired level: awareness, competency, or mastery. Learning outcomes allow course content to be specifically tailored for different levels of student audiences. ESRI’s Virtual Campus was initially envisioned as a modular “knowledge base” of GIS concepts, examples, exercises, and test questions that can be retrieved and structured according to the wishes of a course author (Kemp et al. 1998). A modular design allows different

disciplines to define their own emphases on the subject mat-ter or to take different perspectives on the same subject matter (Langford et al. 1994). Links to modules in related subject net-works are important because many of the ideas are transferable (Healey 1998). Such a modular, interoperable education model is applicable for integrating metadata education with GIScience. Course authors can select from a knowledge base of metadata concepts, examples, and exercises to integrate metadata to the level that best suits their course objectives or the specific-learning objectives of their students.

While modular-based learning materials may provide a student-centered environment, they do not necessarily increase students’ retention. More effective learning strategies call upon students to produce rather than merely consume information (DiBiase 1996). Lessons learned from the GeographyCal project (Healey 1998) stress the importance of developing active learn-ing experiences. Active learning requiring student involvement, discussion, decision-making, and problem solving has proved to be very successful (Meyers and Jones 1993, Keys-Matthews 1998). Laboratory work is also an important method of active inquiry. “Where lectures and readings at best familiarize students with concepts, exercises and discussions provide opportunities for students to develop some level of mastery by engaging the concepts experimentally” (DiBiase 1996:66). Such active learn-ing activities are essential to support the content components of metadata education.

The review of existing course materials provided examples of exercises, which either already incorporate metadata or which are amenable for including metadata. With the availability of so much data on the Internet, there is no longer the need to provide students with “canned” data sets, and active learning is facilitated by requiring students to find, evaluate, download, import, transform, and use data that is available through clear-inghouses and online project sites. Exercises are particularly useful if structured to drive home the point that without metadata the process of collecting and analyzing GIS data can be frustrating and inefficient at the least and inaccurate or inappropriate at the worst. Exercises structured to require students to use metadata within an active, decision-making, or problem-solving context are especially helpful.

Metadata Integration StrategiesIn this section, we discuss basic content needed for metadata education, two different but related strategies for integrating meta-data into curriculum, and finally a specific example of metadata integration in the NCGIA Core Curriculum for Geographic Information Systems.

Content for Metadata Education Content or learning materials are the core of any education pro-gram and provide the foundation upon which different educa-tional strategies can be based. In this section, we present content for metadata education organized into six modules, which can


be mixed and matched for customized course development. The modules are:1. What is metadata?2. Why is metadata important?3. Metadata content standards4. Clearinghouse concepts5. Using and implementing metadata6. Examples of metadata

In addition to topics specific to metadata, material is also pro-vided for relating metadata to other topics commonly found in GIScience courses, including: Coordinate systems/projections Scale Data types Database principles Data models Data sources Data quality Data creation/automation Spatial analysis GIS project design/implementation Decision making Ethical and legal issues Interoperability/standards Future/GIS trends Exercises/student projects

Using these topics as building blocks, educators can create a cus-tomized curriculum for their students’ needs or build metadata into an already established curriculum. To promote student-cen-tered learning, each topic includes the following components: learning outcomes; links to recommended preparatory topics; links to recommended complementary topics, vocabulary, and definitions; and suggested material which may include lecture notes, exercises, and/or discussion questions.

Strategies for Integrating Metadata into GIScience CurriculumWe have developed two strategies for educators and students to choose from, based on their specific learning goals. The first edu-cational strategy is the more loosely structured, in which content is organized by learning outcome. This type of approach is espe-cially well suited for distance, self-paced, or independent learning. Educators and/or students pick the desired learning outcomes, which provide links to specific content.

The second strategy is more structured, in which learn-ing topics are organized by course types. Specific topics are recommended for integrating metadata into different types of traditional higher education courses, including introductory and advanced GIScience courses, map use courses, GIS for discipline-specific courses, and other course types including professional short courses.

Strategy #1: Learning Outcomes. The advantage of defining learning objectives or outcomes is that content can be specifically tailored for different “audiences” both in the academic and in the profession arena. For instance, academic students may range from undeclared freshman/sophomores seeking a general level of awareness to Geography majors requiring a broader exposure to GIScience topics, to GIScience majors requiring the greatest range of depth and breadth, to majors in other disciplines that utilize GIS technology or touch on some aspects of GIScience. Similarly, in the professional field, audiences may range from the “occasional user” to the “novice user,” to the “informed user,” to the highly technically skilled GIS analyst or programmer. To best represent the continuum of academic and professional audiences, learning objective categories were defined according to Heywood and Petch’s five drivers for successful adoption of new technology in a business (1991): 1. Conviction of the effectiveness: ease of use/transition;

improvement of quality and quantity of productivity;2. Motivation to implement the technology and learn how to

use, apply, improve and develop it;3. Skills necessary for accomplishing various aspects the new

technology, including new terminology and new structure;4. Knowledge of topics to add breadth (relation of the

technology to other technologies/fields, implications within the organizational or social structure) and depth (origin and basis for the technical/organizational structure; deconstruction of requirements); and

5. Experience that equates to skills plus knowledge: ability to find deficiencies or flaws in existing implementation; ability to adapt techniques to new or unique situations; ability to provide alternative strategies; ability to develop new applications and methods.

Learning outcomes for each of the topics were provided for Con-viction, Motivation, Skills, and Knowledge (Experience being the outcome of Skills plus Knowledge). The five drivers noted by Heywood and Petch are best suited for this broad range of needs because they closely mirror the complexity of management and education problems faced in introducing a new “way of doing things” in an organization with already established procedures. Effective implementation is more than just training for skills or providing access to necessary knowledge, since metadata, like GIS itself, is more than a software program but is a whole philoso-phy of how to approach tasks. In the NCGIA Core Curriculum for Technical Programs (NCGIA 1996), learning outcomes are categorized by three different levels: awareness, competency, or mastery. However, a manager deciding whether employees should take time away from existing tasks to implement a new task needs more than just awareness or competency; material to provide conviction and motivation is also needed. A manager also needs enough knowledge to understand the implications and issues involved in the implementation of new tasks. Figure 1 provides an example of the learning outcome path a manager might take at the “motivation” level.


Strategy #2: Course Types. The review of course outlines and materials was used extensively to determine which topics are used most often in different course types and how existing learning material for these topics may be modified to include a greater emphasis on metadata. For each of the 10 course-type categories, a matrix was generated of course topics and learning outcome level (“conviction,” “motivation,” “skills,” “knowl-edge”). All of these matrices and other materials are available at www.wygisc.uwyo.edu/metadata/education.html. In this section, extracts of this material are provided as illustration.

For each course topic and learning outcome level, a rec-ommendation of primary or secondary priority is provided for integrating metadata. For instance, the results of the course review indicated that “GIS Implementation” is covered in 54% of Issues/Applications courses, but in only 9% of the classes in the Spatial Analysis category. Therefore, this topic ranks as primary recommendation for integrating metadata in an Issues/Applications course, while it would not be recommended at all in a Spatial Analysis course. However, in a Spatial Analysis course, primary recommendation for integrating metadata is given to other topics, such as Data Quality and Analysis, because of the importance of documenting the data used and steps taken in the analysis so that the results can be replicated. Table 1 shows a sample matrix for a Geographic Information/Map Use course, which deals primarily with maps and spatial data and usually only touches briefly on spatial analysis and related issues. Metadata may be integrated primarily at the “conviction” and “motiva-tion” level, along with some basic skills pertaining to describing data (projection/scale, sources, and quality). In contrast, Table 2 shows a sample matrix for Advanced GIS/GIScience: Issues and Applications, which offers perhaps the greatest range of breadth and depth for integrating metadata, including more material targeted at the “knowledge” level.

Figure 1. Example of a Learning Outcome Path

Course Topics Conviction Motivation Skills Knowledge

Projection/scale Primary Secondary Secondary

Database principles

Data types Primary Secondary

Data models

Data sources Primary Primary Secondary

Data quality Primary Primary Secondary

Data automation

Spatial analysis

GIS implementation

Decision making

Future/GIS trends

Interoperability/standards

Ethics/legal issues

Student projects Primary Primary Secondary

Table 1. Matrix of recommendations for course topics and learning outcome levels for integrating metadata topics into a “Geographic Information/Map Use” course. “Primary” indicates the topic should be included with heavy emphasis at the indicated outcome level, “secondary”

indicates the topic should be included, but receive less attention. Blank cells indicate where it is not necessarily beneficial to mention metadata related to the specific topic.

http://www.wygisc.uwyo.edu/metadata/education.html


Integrating Metadata into the NCGIA CurriculumThe National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis continues a slow but gradual revision of its GIS core curriculum to better emphasize the newly emerging field of GIScience. (http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/giscc). The core curriculum is intended as a foundation for GIScience educators to build upon and enhance with their own insights and expertise. The status and flexibility of the curriculum provide a strong opportunity to incorporate disciplinary themes, new technologies, and emerging issues such as metadata. The working version of the core curriculum for GIScience is organized as a tree. A core perspective of GIScience serves as the root node, with the main branches addressing: (1) Fundamental Geographic Concepts, (2) Implementing Geo-graphic Concepts, (3) Geographic Information Technology in Society, and (4) Application Areas and Case Studies. A review of each branch illustrates the manner in which concepts of metadata can be effectively integrated.

Fundamental Geographic Concepts. This branch of the Core Curriculum provides a basic explanation of how humans per-ceive and represent the world around them. Emphasis is placed on human cognition, cartographic representation, and digital constructs used to abstract and represent spatial relations and phenomena. Data representation is characterized as a series of choices about geographic extent, features selection, methods of data extraction/compilation, map graphics and projections, and

Course Topics Conviction Motivation Skills Knowledge

Projection/scale

Database principles Secondary

Data types

Data models

Data sources Primary Primary Primary

Data quality Primary Primary Primary Primary

Data automation Secondary Secondary

Spatial analysis Secondary Secondary

GIS implementation Secondary Primary

Decision making Secondary Secondary Primary

Future/GIS trends Secondary Primary

Interoperability/standards Secondary Primary

Ethics/legal issues Primary Primary

Student projects Primary Primary Primary

Table 2. Matrix of recommendations for course topics and learning outcome levels for integrating metadata into a “Advanced GIS/GIScience: Issues/Applications” course. “Primary” indicates the topic should be included with heavy emphasis at the indicated outcome level, “secondary” indicates the topic

should be included, but receive less attention. Blank cells indicate where it is not necessarily beneficial to mention metadata related to the specific topic.

the adoption of related standards. The key opportunity in this unit is to emphasize metadata as a means of documenting those choices, such that data consumers are aware of the inherent bias of the data representation and that software systems and users can effectively translate and display the data.

Implementing Geographic Concepts. The second branch of the NCGIA Core Curriculum focuses on the computing technologies and practical measures required to populate and utilize a GIS. Since implementation is fundamental to the “business case” per-spective that best promotes the creation of metadata, the section provides the strongest opportunity to present metadata as a “best practice” throughout the data development and analysis process. Metadata can be promoted as a means of: (1) documenting data compilation sources, methods, and results; (2) locating needed data resources; (3) managing data resources; and (4) motivating self-assessments as to data accuracy, resolution, completeness, and consistency.

Geographic Information Technology in Society. The third branch of the core curriculum emphasizes the importance of de-signing geographic information systems that can be effectively applied to human inquiry and decision-making. To do so requires technicians capable of interpreting and meeting client needs as well as a technologically and geographically literate society capable of accessing, comprehending, and benefiting from applications. Metadata is a public information resource with strong capability

http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/giscc

http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/giscc


to meet the human needs of both the GIS architect/manager and the public. It is a critical component in data distribution, from the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) to universities and other organizations with Intranet and Internet geospatial data libraries (Goodchild 2000). Metadata is the communication medium between the data producer and consumer.

Application Areas and Case Studies. The fourth branch of the Core Curriculum provides an overview of GIS application areas and describes specific examples of GIS implementation. The case studies could be enhanced to provide application specific examples of quality metadata and discuss the effective use of metadata to locate data resources, understand data value/deficiencies, aid in the translation of data into geographic information systems, and manage data resources.

ConclusionsAs early as 1996, metadata was recognized as one of several im-portant elements lacking in the GIS curricula (Kemp and Frank 1996). Realization of the “real world” importance of metadata is still not adequately grasped by GIS students (Delaney and Bruce 2000). GIScience curricula needs to incorporate more than just a token mention of metadata. Furthermore, treating metadata as an isolated topic limits its important connection to a great depth and breadth of GIScience topics. By weaving metadata throughout GIScience curriculum, an important transition can be made from viewing metadata merely as a task to recognizing it as an integral element not only of geospatial data, but also of geographic information systems and science as a whole.

How is metadata an integral component of data? The ele-ments of geospatial data have been described by the equation, “features = coordinates + topology + attributes + metadata” (Dut-ton 1996:253). In the same manner that budget data is the fiscal component of a data set or environmental data is the natural resource component of a data set, metadata is the descriptive component of a data set (Federal Government CIO Council’s Interoperability Committee 1999). Metadata is that element of the data that describes content and structure, provides context, enables discovery, determines fitness-for-use, facilitates manage-ment, instills accountability, and limits liability.

Metadata should also be considered a fundamental, rather than ancillary, component of a GIS. GIS is traditionally defined as a system used for the input, storage, manipulation, and display of geographic data (Carter 1989). Metadata provides operational support to each of these GIS functions. By establishing metadata as a distinct component of GIS, metadata can be more fully uti-lized to identify, retrieve, assess, analyze, and manage geospatial data and projects. In many cases, rather than depending upon inef-ficient manipulation of very large data files, standardized metadata provides unrealized potential as an efficient mechanism for build-ing queries, data models, and analyses to support a full spectrum of geospatial data development and management processes

The realization of metadata as an integral component of both geospatial data and GIS establishes a new perspective on

metadata. This mirrors the new perspective on GIS education that developed in response to the limitations of technical train-ing. A conceptual and functional linkage between GIS and the intellectual core of geography needed to be established to prevent the rigorous geographic theories behind the technology from be-ing obscured (Sui 1995). Making this linkage has protected GIS from being perceived as a mere tool to be used by uninformed operators. Just as GIS is more than just a tool, metadata is more than just a task. Providing students with this new, intellectually-based perspective on metadata in their GIS education will benefit both the expanding field of GIScience and other related fields as a new generation of professionals enters the workforce with a thorough understanding of how metadata relates to geospatial data and GIS technology.

About the Authors

Margo E. (Herdendorf ) Berendsen is an Assistant Research Scientist with the Wyoming Geographic Information Science Center at the University of Wyoming.

Corresponding Address: Margo E. (Herdendorf ) BerendsenWyoming Geographic Information Science CenterUniversity of WyomingPO Box 4008, Laramie, WY 82071

Jeffrey D. Hamerlinck is a Research Scientist in the Depart-ment of Geography and Associate Director of the Wyoming Geographic Information Science Center at the University of Wyoming.

Corresponding Address: Jeffrey D. HamerlinckPhone: (307) 766-2736E-mail: [email protected]

Lynda Wayne is principal of GeoMaxim and serves as the Meta-data Education Coordinator for the Federal Geographic Data Committee.

Corresponding Address:Lynda WayneFGDC Metadata Education CoordinatorGeoMaxim60 Cherokee Road, Asheville, NC 28801

Acknowledgements

This research was funded in part by the Federal Geographic Data Committee through the University Consortium for Geographic Information Science Research Projects Program. The authors wish to acknowledge the discussions generated by participants in the 1999 Federal Geographic Data Committee/UCGIS Metadata



Education Workshop and the 2001 UCGIS Online Metadata Education Survey. We also thank Keith Clarke, UC-Santa Barbara, who reviewed the preliminary Web-based publication of these integration strategies, and the anonymous reviewers for improving the quality of this manuscript.

References

Berendsen, M.E. and J.D. Hamerlinck, 2000, Integrating Meta-data Education Strategies: a Web-based Resource Guide for Integrating Metadata Content into the Geographic Informa-tion Science Curriculum (a project report on development of a metadata course material package and marketing strategy for the geospatial data community) (Laramie, WY: Spatial Data and Visualization Center), http://www.sdvc.uwyo.edu/metadata/proposal.html (Accessed December 4, 2001).

Bowker, G.C., 2000, Mapping Biodiversity. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 14(8), 739-754.

Campbell, H.J., 1999, Institutional Consequences of the Use of GIS. In Longley, P.A., M.F. Goodchild, D.J. Maguire, and D.W. Rhind (Eds.), Geographical Information Systems (New York: John Wiley and Sons), 2, 621-631.

Carter, J.R., 1989, On Defining the Geographic Information System. In Ripple, W.L. (Ed.), Fundamentals of Geo-graphic Information Systems: A Compendium (Bethesda, MD: American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing and the American Congress on Surveying and Mapping), 3-8.

Dale, P., 1991, Education in Land Information Management. Cartographica, 28(3), 23-30

Delaney, J.L. and E. Bruce, 2000, Students’ Perceptions of the Importance of Real-World GIS Issues. Proceedings of the International IT Conference on GeoSpatial Education.

DiBiase, D., 2000, Is Distance Education a Faustian Bargain? Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 24(1), 130-135.

DiBiase, D., 1996, Rethinking Laboratory Education for an Introductory Course on Geographic Information. Carto-graphica, 33(4), 61-71.

Dutton, G., 1996, Improving Locational Specificity of Map Data: A Multi-Resolution, Metadata-Driven Approach and Notation. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 10(3), 253-268.

Eliot, C.J., 2001, A Metadata Initiative for Global Information Discovery. Government Information Quarterly, 18(3), 209-221.

Environmental Systems Research Institute, 2001, What is Arc-GIS? (Redlands, CA: ESRI Press).

Federal Geographic Data Committee, The Value of Metadata (1997), http://www.fgdc.gov/publications/documents/metadata/metabroc.html (Accessed December 4, 2001).

Federal Government CIO Council’s Interoperability Committee, 1999, What Every CIO Needs to Know About Metadata. Report of the Federal Agencies IT Architecture Working Group, (Washington, DC).

Foote, K. E., 1997, The Geographer’s Craft: Teaching GIS in the Web. Transactions in GIS, 2, 137-150.

Forer, P. and D. Unwin, 1999, Enabling Progress in GIS and Education. In Longley, P.A., M.F. Goodchild, D.J. Maguire, and D.W. Rhind (Eds.), Geographical Information Systems (New York: John Wiley and Sons), 2, 747-756.

Gaudet, C., H. Annulis, and J. Carr, 2001, Workforce Develop-ment Models For Geospatial Technology (Hattiesburg, MS: University of Southern Mississippi Geospatial Workforce Development Center).

Gelbman, R. and T. Mathys, 1999, Making Metadata Part of Your Daily Diet. Proceedings of the 1999 Urban and Re-gional Information Systems Association Annual Conference, Chicago, Illinois, August 1999.

Goodchild, M.F., 2000, Browsing Metadata: Where Do We Go From Here? Geo Info Systems, 10(5), 30-31.

Guptill, S.C., 1999, Metadata and Data Catalogues. In Longley, P.A., M.F. Goodchild, D.J. Maguire, and D.W. Rhind (Eds.), Geographical Information System (New York: John Wiley and Sons), 2, 677-692.

Healey, M., 1998, Developing and Disseminating Good Educa-tional Practices: Lessons from Geography in Higher Educa-tion, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Supporting Educational, Faculty and TA Development within Departments and Disciplines. The International Con-sortium for Educational Development in Higher Education, Austin, TX, April 1998, 19-22.

Heywood, D.I and J.R. Petch, 1991, GIS Education: A Business Perspective. Cartographica, 28(3), 10-22.

Hunter, G.J. and E. Masters, 2000, What’s Wrong with Data Quality Information? Abstracts, International Conference on Geographic Information Science, Savannah, GA, October 2000, 201-203.

Jenkins, A., 1991, Through a Model Darkly: An Educational Postscript. Cartographica 28(3), 103-108.

Kemp, K.K., D.E. Reeve, and D.I. Heywood, 1998, Report of the International Workshop on Interoperability for GIScience Education (IGE ‘98), Soesterberg, The Netherlands, May 1998, http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/ige98/report/

Kemp, K.K. and R. Wight, 1997, UCGIS Identifies GIScience Education Priorities. Geo Info Systems, 7(9), 16-20.

Kemp, K.K. and A. Frank, 1996, Toward a Consensus on a European GIS Curriculum: The International Post-Gradu-ate Course on GIS. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 10(4), 47-497.

Kemp, K. K., 1991, The NCGIA Core Curriculum Evaluation Program: A Review and Assessment. Cartographica, 28(3), 88-93.

http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/ige98/report/

46 URISA Journal • Vol. 15, No. 1 • 2003 URISA Journal • Kemp 47

Kemp, K.K. and M.F. Goodchild, 1991, Developing a Cur-riculum in Geographic Information Systems: The National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis Core Cur-riculum Project. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 15(2), 121-132.

Kennedy, M., 2000, Embedded Metadata: Quality Control with the Dot Probability Paradigm and ArcQC. Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual ESRI User Conference, San Diego, CA, July 2000. (CD-ROM)

Keys-Matthews, L., Introduction to Active Learning (1998), http://www.lapc.cc.ca.us/usr/gisaccess/al/lkm.htm (Accessed De-cember 4, 2001).

Langford, M., J.A. Dykes, and J.D. Wood, 1994, The Design and Implementation of a Flexible GIS Teaching Resource. Proceedings, Fifth European Conference and Exhibition on Geographical Information Systems.

Marble, D., 1998, Rebuilding the Top of the Pyramid. ArcNews, Spring 1998.

Marble, D.F., 1999, Developing a Model, Multipath Cur-riculum for GIScience. ArcNews Online, (Summer 1999), http://www.esri.com/news/arcnews/summer99articles/01-developing.html

Meitner, M., D. Cavens, and S. Sheppard, 2001, Semi-Auto-mated Metadata Capture Systems: How to Elicit Compliance within a Democratic Setting. Proceedings, Twenty-First An-nual ESRI International Conference, San Diego, CA, July 2001 (CD-ROM).

Meyers, C. and T.B. Jones, 1993, Promoting Active Learning: Strategies for the College Classroom (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers).

Michener, W.K., 1998, Ecological Metadata. In Michener, W.K., J.H. Porter, and S.G. Stafford (Eds.), Data and Information Management in the Ecological Sciences: A Resource Guide (Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico LTER Net-work Office), 47-52.

Milstead, J. and S. Feldman, 1999, Metadata: Cataloging by any other Name..., Online, Inc., January 1999, http://www.onlineinc.com/onlinemag/metadata/ (Accessed December 4, 2001).

National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, 1996, National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis Core Curriculum for Technical Programs, http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu:80/education/curricula/cctp/ (Ac-cessed December 4, 2001).

National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, 2000, The NCGIA Core Curriculum in GIScience, http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/ (Accessed December 4, 2001).

Norheim, R.A., D.L. Peterson, T.Z. Alcock, and N.R. Chrisman, 2000, Metadata SWAT Teams: A Success Story in Creating a Regional Clearinghouse Node. Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual ESRI User Conference, San Diego, CA, July 2000 (CD-ROM).

Piscedda, S., 1994, How to Set Up a GIS Course: The Contribu-tion of Formez Through an Italian Experience. Proceedings, Fifth European Conference and Exhibition on Geographical Information Systems.

Plewe, B., 1997, Automated Metadata Interpretation to Assist in the Use of Unfamiliar GIS Data Sources. Proceedings, International Conference on Interoperating Geographic Information Systems, Santa Barbara, CA, December 1997.

Porter, J. H., D.L. Henshaw, and S.G. Stafford, 1997, Research Metadata in Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER). Pro-ceedings of the Second IEEE Metadata Conference, Silver Spring, MD, September 1997.

Raper, J. and N. Green, 1992, Teaching the Principles of GIS: Lessons from the GISTutor Project. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 6(4), 279-290.

Rogerson, R.J., 1992, Teaching Generic GIS Using Commercial Software. International Journal of Geographic Information Systems, 6(4), 321-331.

Sengupta, R.R., 2000, A Distributed Intelligent Geographical Modeling Environment for Spatial Decision Support. Ph.D. Dissertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.

Sherman, R.P., 1997, Metadata: The Missing Link. DBMS, 10(9), 73-84.

Spery, L., C. Claramunt, and T. Libourel, 2001, A Spatio-Tem-poral Model for the Manipulation of Lineage Metadata. Geoinformatics, 5(1), 51-70.

Sui, D.Z., 1995, A Pedagogic Framework to Link GIS to the Intellectual Core of Geography. Journal of Geography, 94(6), 578-591.

Tsou, M. and B.P. Buttenfield, 2000, Agent-Based Mecha-nisms for Distributing Geographic Information Services on the Internet, Abstracts, International Conference on Geographic Information Science, Savannah, GA, October 2000, 30-32.

University Consortium of Geographic Information Science, 1997, Alternative Designs for Curriculum Content and Evaluation, UCGIS Education Committee, 1997, http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/other/ucgis/ed_priorities/curricula.html (Accessed December 4, 2001).

Unwin, D.J., 1997, Unit 159: Curriculum Design for GIS. In NCGIA Core Curriculum in Geographic Information Sys-tems, http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/units/u159/u159.html (Accessed December 4, 2001).

Vert, G.L., 2000, A Fuzzy Object Relational Model for The Management of Spatial Data, Ph.D. Dissertation, Univer-sity of Idaho.

Wayne, L.D., 2001, Integrating Concepts of Geospatial Metadata into GIScience Education, Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual ESRI International Conference, San Diego, CA, July 2001 (CD-ROM).

http://www.esri.com/news/arcnews/summer99articles/01-developing.html

http://www.esri.com/news/arcnews/summer99articles/01-developing.html

http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/units/u159/u159.html

http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/units/u159/u159.html


Graduates of many existing academic programs find themselves ill-equipped when they seek employment in one of the many public and private sector activities making substantial use of geographic information systems (GIS). Among the difficulties that they encounter are: inadequate knowledge of the critical computer science/information technology basis of GIS; a weak understanding of the special characteristics of spatial data; in-sufficient knowledge pertaining to both the current theoretical and practical status of spatial analysis and the capabilities of the technology available to implement spatial analysis approaches; and insufficient training in identification of the spatial compo-nents of problems and in the specification of potential solutions to these problems.

The University Consortium for Geographic Information Sci-ence (UCGIS), a group of more than 60 colleges and universities, public agencies and private sector firms, is undertaking to address this problem through the development of a flexible, broadly based undergraduate curricula in Geographic Information Science and Technology (GI S&T). Curriculum, as used in this document, refers to a 4-year course of study consisting of specified major and minor courses, together with specified prerequisites, general education courses, and electives leading to one of the standard undergraduate degrees.

Origin of the Model Curricula ProjectThe UCGIS Model Curricula Project arose out of the UCGIS Education Challenges identified at the 1997 UCGIS Summer Assembly in Bar Harbor, Maine. One of the challenges, “Alterna-tive Designs for Curriculum Content & Evaluation,” recognized that “as the development and use of GIS continue to grow, it is increasingly important for educators to deliver a proper founda-tion in GIScience. However, there are many different education constituencies and each has different educational needs. Many GIScience [geographic information science] curricula have been developed over the last 20 years using a one-size-fits-all approach. It is time to consider the various demands of GIS workplaces and the needs of different types of students. … Therefore, improving GIScience education requires the specification and assessment of curricula for a wide range of student constituencies” (Kemp and Wright 1997). The UCGIS Executive was pleased when Prof. Duane Marble, upon his advancement to the status of Emeritus Professor at The Ohio State University, volunteered to lead an effort to address these issues. A Task Force was soon formed to undertake related tasks. Membership is listed at the conclusion of this report.

Update on the UCGIS Model Curricula Project

Prepared by Karen K. Kemp on behalf of the UCGIS Model Curricula Task Force*

The Task Force on the Model GI S&T Curricula is an activity of the Education Committee of the UCGIS. The Task Force, acting through its Steering Committee, is engaged in the development of a flexible, multi-path set of undergraduate Model Curricula. Among the goals of the Model Curricula are to signifi-cantly increase both the technical depth (especially in the areas of computer science, information technology and spatial analysis) and the interdisciplinary breadth of graduates from programs with explicit GI S&T components. Another major goal involves the improvement of graduate’s ability to identify problems with a spatial or spatial-temporal context and to apply existing GI S&T concepts and tools to their solution.

The Domain of the GI S&T Body of Knowledge In a rapidly developing interdisciplinary area such as Geographic Information Science & Technology, it is difficult to precisely identify its boundaries. What should be included? What should be excluded? The responses to these questions most often reflect individual disciplinary views, but in order to remove the serious gaps and overlaps that currently characterize undergraduate edu-cation in the GI S&T realm, we must develop, as a minimum, a sharp and intuitive view of what is under discussion.

The domain that is to be spanned by the GI S&T Body of Knowledge is initially defined by a three-component model of GI S&T: Geographic Information Science, Geographic Information Technology, and Utilization of Geographic Information Science & Technology. Where do we draw the line between the GI S&T Body of Knowledge and the rest of human understanding? From a pragmatic point of view, this will be accomplished as the GI S&T Body of Knowledge is iteratively developed. Since GI S&T is an interdisciplinary collection of concepts, tools, and data from many spatially oriented disciplines, for each discipline we may expect to see some inclusions and some exclusions. For example, the general body of Statistics would be excluded but spatial statistics would be included. This does not mean that the former is not relevant nor that knowledge in this area is not a prerequisite to some GI S&T activities.

The intent of the Model Curricula effort is not to define a new GI S&T discipline, but rather to define a common inter-disciplinary area that will be capable of significantly augmenting each of the existing disciplines. To accomplish this, we must recognize that broadening the student’s knowledge of critical interdisciplinary topics as well as increasing the overall level of technical competence represent primary concerns.

Specific student outcomes with respect to GI S&T have been generalized to permit the curriculum to chiefly address a more


limited number of closely related outcomes. These include: the routine application of GI S&T within a specific

disciplinary area (e.g., a student planning an operational career in the forest industry),

the development of new GI S&T applications within one or more closely related disciplinary areas (e.g., a hydrologist whose professional concern will be with non-routine and new applications of GI S&T in that area),

the advancement of GI S&T related scientific knowledge within a discipline (e.g., a student intending to seek an advanced degree in geography with a specialty in locational analysis), or

the development, construction, and testing of new geographic information technology (e.g., a student in computer science or geodetic science who intends to seek a career in GI S&T software development).

Attainment of any of these generalized outcomes requires the acquisition of a specific set of skills and concepts – some relating to the student’s discipline of choice and others drawn from the broader interdisciplinary area of GI S&T. Associated with each generalized outcome will be a path that defines the appropriate traversal of a curriculum that is needed to attain the specified outcome. When completed, the Model Curricula will identify and enumerate a number of these paths. It is an-ticipated that the disciplinary content of those paths primarily associated with GI S&T applications will be adjusted by the disciplines involved, so as to more closely meet the special needs of each discipline.

Defining the GI S&T Body of KnowledgeAfter substantial discussion, the Task Force agreed to adopt a modified version of the highly successful curriculum develop-ment methodology that has been utilized for several decades in the areas of computer science (IEEE Computer Society and Association for Computing Machinery 2001), information tech-nology (Association for Computing Machinery, Association for Information Systems, and Association of Information Technology Professionals 1997), and project management (Project Manage-ment Institute 2000). This top-down design approach involves the definition of the GI S&T Body of Knowledge (BoK) and its subsequent decomposition into the critical components of vari-ous outcome-based paths that will characterize the final form of the Model Curricula.

The knowledge areas will be broken down into units (rep-resenting individual thematic modules). Each unit will then be further subdivided into a set of topics representing the lowest level of the hierarchy which will be used as the building blocks to construct model courses. The same topics may appear in different courses depending on the competency levels required. The Task Force will seek to identify a minimal GI S&T core consisting of those units for which there is a broad consensus that the cor-

responding material is essential to everyone studying beyond the General Education level who is seeking an undergraduate degree with an explicit GI S&T component.

The concerns of the Task Force extend beyond identifica-tion of the intellectual content of the Model Curricula. It must also address the significant implementation and infrastructure questions that surround it. A subsequent and closely related cur-riculum activity involves the need to specifically identify those components of supporting curricula (e.g., those in computer science, geography, mathematics and statistics) that are needed to sustain the GI S&T curriculum.

Other disciplines who have utilized the BoK approach through a number of evolutionary revisions have found that it provides a strong foundation upon which to incorporate sci-entific, technical, and application knowledge advancements. In GI S&T, no definition of a relevant BoK existed when the Task Force began its work. Creating an initial draft of a GI S&T BoK has been a challenging task. Thus, the Task Force is commit-ted to the widespread public review of its work in progress that must involve as many components of the GI S&T community as possible, including users in industry and government as well as academia.

The Draft GI S&T Body of Knowledge The Task Force has undertaken several internal iterations of a Body of Knowledge that have led to the present public “Initial Draft” of the GI S&T Body of Knowledge. The Task Force has been materially assisted in deliberations by a number of profes-sionals, mostly academics, who have been kind enough to pro-vide input and comments. Following the UCGIS 2002 Summer Assembly in Athens, Georgia, the Task Force agreed upon the following initial list of knowledge areas.

The 14 GI S&T Knowledge Areas1. Conceptualization of space2. Formalizing space conceptions3. Spatial data models and data structures4. Design aspects5. Spatial data acquisition, sources and standards6. Spatial data manipulation7. Exploratory spatial data analysis8. Confirmatory spatial analysis9. Computational geography (geocomputation)10. Conceptualizing spatial visualizations and presentations11. Building spatial visualizations and presentations12. Evaluating spatial visualizations and presentations13. Organizational and institutional aspects14. Professional, social, and legal aspects

Note that the Task Force defines the terms “space” and “spatial” in this context to include reference to “space-time” and “spatial-temporal.”


In addition to the knowledge areas, the Task Force recognizes that there are some very basic concepts common to many of the areas. Their significance is in their importance to all knowledge areas. These Cross-Cutting Themes exist in parallel with the knowledge areas. Thus, they will be incorporated into the more detailed specifications of each Knowledge Area as appropriate.

The Nine Cross-Cutting Themes1. Scale 2. Error and data quality3. Uncertainty 4. Metadata5. Interoperability6. Generalization7. Quality management8. History and trends9. Standards

Status of the ProjectThe GI S&T Body of Knowledge is rapidly evolving. However, intense interest in the outcome of this project continues to pro-vide momentum to the group and others who are assisting in its development. The current status of this project can be found on the web at www.ucgis.org.

Footnote

* The Task Force includes the Chair Duane Marble (The Ohio State University) and Members Linda Bishoff (GE Smallworld), Aileen Buckley (University of Oregon), Mi-chael DeMers (New Mexico State University), Ann Johnson (ESRI), Farrell Jones (Intergraph), Karen Kemp (University of Redlands), Carolyn Merry (The Ohio State University), Donna Peuquet (The Pennsylvania State University), Jay Sandhu (ESRI), Mandayam Srinivas (California State Poly-technic University-Pomona), Elizabeth Wentz (Arizona State University), and Richard Wright (San Diego State Univer-sity).

References

Association for Computing Machinery, Association for Informa-tion Systems, and Association of Information Technology Professionals, 1997, IS’97: Model Curriculum and Guide-lines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Information Systems. www.is2000.org/rev/review1.html.

IEEE Computer Society and Association for Computing Machin-ery, 2001, Computing Curricula 2001: Computer Science, Final Report, The Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula, IEEE Computer Society and Association for Computing Ma-chinery, December 15, 2001. www.computer.org/education/cc2001/final/index.htm

Kemp, K. K. and R. Wright, 1997, UCGIS Identifies GIScience Education Priorities. Geo Info Systems, 7(9), 16-20.

Project Management Institute, 2001, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA.


URISA Journal • Huxhold, Craig 51

URISA Journal • Huxhold, Craig 51

An independent Geographic Information Systems Certification Institute (GISCI), governed by a wide range of stakeholder groups including the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (URISA) and its allied associations, shortly will help define the GIS profession as it adopts a formal professional certification program and code of ethics. Both programs got their start at URISA after its GIS Certification Committee, composed of 38 seasoned GIS professionals and academics (see list), completed work on the Content of Certifica-tion Requirements and Ethical Conduct Standards late in 2002. At its meeting on October 26, 2002, the URISA Board of Directors voted to accept the proposed certification requirements for the purpose of conducting a 1-year test that will begin in January 2003.

Both the GIS Professional Certification Program and the GIS Professional Code of Ethics contain guidelines for GIS professionals to use when making professional career and ethical choices. The purpose of both programs is to provide professionals who work in the field of geographic information systems with a formal process that will allow them to be recognized by their colleagues and employers as having demonstrated professional competence and integrity in the field by maintaining high stan-dards of professional practice and ethical conduct. In addition, the programs will provide a basis for judging the validity of allegations or complaints involving GIS practitioners. Finally, the programs will assist aspiring professionals in choosing GIS as a career by identifying appropriate professional and moral characteristics of members of the profession, and will encourage established GIS professionals to continue to hone their professional skills and ethical performance even as GIS technology changes.

In addition, the Code of Ethics should provide a basis by which GIS professionals can evaluate their work and the work of others from a moral point of view. By following this code, GIS professionals will help preserve and enhance public trust in the discipline. Those who violate this code will most likely be criticized by their professional colleagues, and, quite possibly, lose their certification credentials.

Professional CertificationThe GIS ProfessionIn 1989, D.L. Pugh researched professionalism for the American Society for Public Administration and identified certain prereq-uisites for defining a profession within a field: the existence of a specialized body of knowledge, a formal professional organization, a common language, a particular culture and lore, and a code of ethics (Pugh 1989). While Obermeyer (1993) and Goodchild and Kemp (1992) disagree on how close the GIS profession is to being a profession as Pugh defined one, they agree that there is a need to develop a framework for defining the requirements for

practicing GIS and ensuring quality of the results. Obermeyer (1993) further suggested that “Whether we like it or not, certi-fication is an idea that is becoming a reality.”

The URISA Board of Directors, by establishing a GIS Certi-fication Committee, felt that, not only is there a GIS profession, but there also should be a formal means to evaluate the compe-tency of professionals who design and use geographic information systems. That was the charge given to the Committee when it was created in 1998.

Evaluation of CompetenciesProfessional disciplines such as engineering, urban planning, and landscape architecture have established means for defining the requirements of their professions as well as evaluating the competency of individuals practicing the professions. Goodchild and Kemp (1992) define five models that can be generalized into two distinct methods, based upon what is evaluated: Accreditation – evaluating the educational programs from where they received their training and education, and Certification – directly evaluat-ing the competency of the individual.

Accreditation of education and training programs assures that what should be taught, is taught, and is being taught well [Editor’s note: See the article by DiBiase in this issue for more on accreditation]. Because GIS educational programs exist in a variety of different academic disciplines, many of which have their own accreditation requirements, no single authoritative body has established accepted criteria for evaluating the quality of GIS courses and programs. The University Consortium for Geographic Information Science (UCGIS) is now in the process of developing a model undergraduate GIS curriculum, but that is directed more toward geographic information scientists [Editor’s note: See the report on the UCGIS project elsewhere in this is-sue]. No authoritative institution has provided guidelines on what GIS practitioners should be taught; therefore, it is impossible to assess the quality of GIS education and accredit programs that teach GIS at this time.

Professions use individual certification either in addition to or instead of accreditation. This is accomplished through an examination or other means to evaluate the specific competen-cies of an individual. Although accrediting academic programs could be more efficient than evaluating each individual in the profession, the lack of educational standards led the Commit-tee to concentrate on individual GIS certification. (Note that certification programs and licensing or registration programs are used for different purposes. In general, certification of individu-als is a means to establish professional and ethical standards, whereas the licensure or registration of professionals is meant

Certification and Ethics in the GIS Profession

William E. Huxhold and William J. Craig

52 URISA Journal • Vol. 15, No. 1 • 2003 URISA Journal • Huxhold, Craig 53

to protect the public from any harm that an incompetent pro-fessional may cause. In addition, licensure and registration are administered by a governmental body (states, in the case of surveyors), while certification is usually administered by one’s professional peers.)

While Wikle (1998) promoted professional GIS certifica-tion in his model for continuing education, he cautioned that “professional competency programmes must involve significant input from industry, academia, and professional associations. Furthermore, to be accepted by practitioners, such programmes must be carefully planned and continuously reviewed.” (p. 504). Those words of caution were foremost in the minds of those who volunteered to be members of the URISA GIS Certification Com-mittee. The charge given the Committee by the URISA Board of Directors was to explore GIS certification, determine its benefits, identify and review other efforts to evaluate skills of GIS profes-sionals, and propose a program that can benefit the profession and society. In other words – plan certification carefully.

The GIS Certification CommitteeOn July 20, 1998, the Certification Committee held its first meeting with 19 members present. No volunteers were excluded from membership on the Committee, which was composed of a rich mixture of practitioners, academics, public sector employees, and private sector entrepreneurs and employees. This meeting preceded two panel sessions at the URISA 98 Annual Conference that addressed the topic of evaluating skills of the GIS profes-sional. A total of 150 conference attendees participated in these two panel discussions – often invoking lively discussions.

Initial discussion focused on whether certification is neces-sary, and the consensus was that GIS certification was going to happen whether URISA was involved or not since a number of organizations were also beginning discussions on the topic. Indeed, the Committee felt that it was critical for URISA to take a leading role in the development of a certification program since the International Standards Organization (ISO) had already taken steps internationally to develop GIS certification standards (Somers 2000). URISA, known for its multidisciplinary member-ship, was the logical organization to take the lead.

Opinions were also expressed that it is difficult to evaluate the competency of all professionals using geographic informa-tion technology because the professionals have different levels of responsibility (user, analyst, programmer, manager, etc.) and because they come from so many different disciplines. There was consensus, however, on the fact that there are “core” skills that all GIS professionals needed to perform adequately. Gaining con-sensus on exactly what those core skills are became one of the goals of the Committee. Although this was not accomplished, the Committee did compile a list of 23 disciplines that use GIS.

Later that year, the Committee participated in the Education Summit sponsored by UCGIS at the GIS/LIS 98 Conference in Fort Worth to discuss topics associated with assessing skills in the GIS profession and to hear from other associations on those topics.

Representatives from The American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS) and The American Congress on Survey-ing and Mapping (ACSM) also were in attendance at this meeting.

By 1999, the Committee had grown to 30 members and had developed a web presence on the certification issue, providing status reports, white papers, and links to other associations and university GIS educational programs. A feedback mechanism was implemented at the site, and by July 1999, comments from 23 GIS professionals had been recorded. To gather more input from GIS professionals, a survey soliciting opinions was sent to 3000 URISA members and 5000 other GIS professionals. A total of 180 responded. The survey queried the GIS professionals on whether certification should be studied (63% – Yes); what mixture of education and experience should certification require (92% – Combination); whether there should be a single certification or discipline-specific certification (56% – Discipline-specific); and whether or not re-certification should be required (37% – Yes).

The 1999 and 2000 Annual Conferences continued to focus on certification issues with panel sessions, luncheon seminars, and committee meetings – all well attended. After the 2000 Conference, the Committee issued the “Report on Assuring the Qualifications of GIS Professionals,” a summary of its research and decisions regarding certification.

Justification for Evaluating GIS CompetencyThe 2000 Committee Report first addressed the justification for GIS certification. After extensive research on certification and licensing programs in other professions (both nationally and in-ternationally) and many meetings and Internet discussions, the Committee identified a number of important reasons why GIS certification is needed: to provide a means for attaining recognition by one’s

colleagues and peers that the GIS professional has demonstrated professional competence and integrity in the field;

to encourage long-term professional development that will help existing professionals maintain currency in GIS technology and methods;

to ensure ethical behavior by members of the profession and provide a basis for judging the validity of allegations or complaints against GIS practitioners;

to assist prospective employers to assess and hire GIS professionals;

to ensure that those who produce geographic information have a core competency of knowledge;

to define and protect professional bodies of knowledge; to assist aspiring GIS professionals and professionals outside

the GIS profession choose their educational opportunities wisely;

to contribute to the development of geographic information science;

develop standard GIS job descriptions; and to establish and maintain links to GIS education bodies.


However, the primary beneficiary of professional certification is the public: Given that the public sector is the largest employ-ment sector using GIS technology today, it was felt that taxpayers deserve assurance that competent and ethical GIS professionals are being hired with their tax dollars. Also, citizens are possibly the largest group of people that can be affected by the use of GIS in the operations of government, so it is anticipated that GIS certification can assure the appropriate application of GIS technology to improve the quality of their lives. Finally, young people can be made aware of the GIS career and what it takes to become a GIS professional through the formal definition of the profession that certification provides.

Guiding Principles for Setting Competency Standards for GIS ProfessionalsThe report also defined five guiding principles that were to be used to drive the development of competency standards. These principles were needed in order to gain consensus on how the standards could be defined:

Any initiative must be voluntary and open to all qualified individuals. Creating barriers to the entry and continued employ-ment of qualified and ethical GIS professionals is not a goal of the program.

Any initiative must be flexible. The desire to identify more than one way to demonstrate competency directed the Committee away from a test-based system of evaluating competency. Rather, the Committee was directed toward a model more similar to the United Kingdom’s Association for Geographic Information (AGI) certification scheme (“Continuing Professional Development”). Rapidly changing technology and the inability to agree on the “core competencies” were also important reasons for not adopting a test-based system.

Any initiative should incorporate existing GIS educational infrastructure.

The well-developed infrastructure of community colleges, universities, GIS consultants and software vendors, and other or-ganizations and professional associations who offer GIS education and training should be included to encourage cooperation within the GIS community, stay on the cutting edge of the technology, and provide an alternative to testing.

Any initiative should be collaborative. The multi-disciplin-ary use of geographic information technology requires that many different disciplines be involved in the development of GIS competency standards. Developing a system that includes organizations and professionals outside URISA will avoid giving privilege to members of some professions or disciplines while marginalizing others.

Any initiative must include a code of ethics. Professional practice includes two complementary components: competence and ethics. These two elements are of equal importance because the competent professional who engages in unethical behavior can do as much harm to an organization as an incompetent professional.

The Proposed Certification Program for GIS ProfessionalsThe Certification Committee, at its meeting at the 2001 URISA Annual Conference, voted unanimously to recommend the pro-posed Certification Program for GIS professionals. After present-ing the proposal to the URISA Board of Directors on October 25, 2001, the Committee received approval to develop the details of a GIS Certification Program. The initial version was published on the URISA web site in November 2001.

Thus began public debate over the contents of the Certifica-tion Program: more than 250 detailed comments were posted by GIS professionals at the public web site (Guestbook) and several Certification Committee members and URISA staff presented the proposed program at dozens of GIS meetings and conferences across the nation to receive feedback.

Concerns that the proposal was biased toward academics and that too many academicians were on the Committee resulted in the establishment of three subcommittees (triads) to address specific comments in each of the three categories: educational achievement, professional experience, and professional contribu-tions. A non-academic practitioner chaired each triad. A fourth triad was established to investigate the need for level designations (Beginner, Master, Expert, etc.).

The “Level Triad” found that having no levels separates cer-tification clearly from career development. A potential problem with the multi-level program is that many may incorrectly inter-pret the levels as a path toward career development – however, GIS career paths should be developed with more information and thought about an individual’s specific situation. Another possible concern with the multi-level program is that Human Resource officials and other non-GIS professionals involved in hiring deci-sions may use levels to shortcut the hiring process by avoiding detailed examination of job applicants who do not have a specific level designation. The multi-level model also presents potential operational complications that could result in delays in issuing certification and re-certification if many professionals resubmit for a higher level after they gain additional points.

A second version of the proposed program, modified by the Committee after studying the public feedback, was published in April 2002. Five more months of public feedback followed and again was reviewed by the Committee. The Committee approved the final pilot version (as shown in this printing) in October 2002. Throughout the process, the Committee met via conference calls 10 times to refine the proposals.

Overview of the ProgramThe proposed GIS Certification Program is a voluntary program that is intended to acknowledge the professional achievements of those whose primary job responsibility involves the use of geo-spatial data technology. It is not a program for general users of GIS technology. The program is a point-based system that is self-documented and calculated by the individual seeking certification. This means that applicants must document points in the following


three categories: educational achievement, professional experience, and professional contributions. Acceptance of the GIS Professional Code of Ethics and periodic re-certification are required.

The program does not include an examination because gen-eral agreement on the skills needed for the GIS profession has not yet been achieved, given that there are so many different profes-sions that use GIS technology. Designing a single examination that can equitably evaluate the basic skills needed is very difficult and is likely to be highly contentious. Unfortunately, graduation from an accredited education program is not yet an option for evaluat-ing qualifications.* Therefore, professional experience weighs the most in determining qualification for certification.

* While there has been a dramatic increase in the number, vari-ety, and quality of educational programs offering GIS certificates, as noted above there is no authoritative body to evaluate their quality. Since there is no such accreditation of GIS educational programs, it is impossible to determine which, if any, provide the skills needed in the profession. While UCGIS is addressing GIS education cur-riculum guidelines, no accreditation process is in place (or planned) to assure compliance or evaluate quality. URISA has accredited its own GIS workshops, but they are only a small offering among the many courses and workshops that are currently available.

While experience is the most important factor in being able to apply skills to real world problems, education does play a very important role in providing the knowledge and intellectual maturity required to approach problems and communicate solu-tions effectively. Additionally, it is important for professionals to help maintain the fundamental health of the profession and to contribute to its advancement by donating their time and skills in related efforts not leading directly to individual compensation. Thus, applicants must document points in three categories: edu-cational achievement, professional experience, and professional contributions.

The minimum number of points required in each category is as follows:

Educational Achievement: 30 pointsProfessional Experience: 60 points Professional Contributions: 8 points

As a benchmark, these minimums could be achieved by a person who has a Bachelor’s degree with some GIS courses taken either in the degree program or as professional development courses (20 points for the degree plus 10 more for the courses); four years of experience in GIS application or data development (4 years x 15 points per year = 60 points); and a membership (1 point per year x 4 years = 4 points) and modest participation in the activities of some local, regional, or national group of GIS professionals (one newsletter article or GIS-related volunteer effort per year = 4 points).

Recognizing that there are many professionals who should qualify for certification but do not have a formal educational background, and that there are other professionals who do not have institutional support to contribute back to the profession, flexibility in the distribution of points is built into the program. That is the reason that a minimum in the total number of points

required has been established. To be certified, the applicant must have a minimum of 150

points. This means that, in addition to the minimum points in each category listed above, an additional 52 points are required in any one of the categories or in a combination of the three. Thus, whatever a person is lacking in, for example, education, can be made up for in experience – as long as that person meets the minimum in each category.

The full text of the final proposal for the pilot program fol-lows as Appendix A.

In order to retain certification, a Certified GIS Professional must remain active in the profession. Once every 5 years, a cer-tification renewal application must be submitted, identifying additional points in each of the three achievement categories since initial certification or previous renewal. Any Certified GIS Professional who fails to earn the minimum renewal points dur-ing that 5-year period is no longer considered a member of the GISCI nor is that person professionally certified.

Next Steps for CertificationDuring 2003, a pilot project will be conducted using members of the Georgia Chapter of URISA and other related GIS professionals (e.g., members of ACSM, ASPRS, and The Geospatial Information and Technology Association (GITA)) in the State of Georgia to test the certification criteria and evaluation process. If the results are positive, whatever necessary modifications identified during the pilot will be made, and the full Certification Program will com-mence, possibly by the end of 2003 or the beginning of 2004.

The GIS Certification Institute (GISCI), a 501(c)(6) orga-nization that is a separate entity from URISA, will be responsible for conducting the pilot project and making whatever any needed modifications to the program. The GISCI has its own board of directors, and its members will consist of professional organiza-tions whose primary interest is spatial information and technology. At present, URISA is the only member; however, over the next year (and also in future years), URISA’s “sister” organizations will be invited to join by the GISCI Board of Directors. Its mission is to provide the GIS community with a mechanism and process for attaining professional certification.

Application fees paid by individuals seeking GIS certification from the GISCI will support a staff that will run the certifica-tion process. Standing volunteer committees of GIS professionals will be organized to assist the Board of Directors and the staff in carrying out the mission of the Institute. The current vision of the GISCI includes two such volunteer committees: a review committee of five members who will review submitted portfolios and make final decisions about individual applications, and an “oversight” (policy) committee of five members who will study and recommend changes in the process as it evolves.

Code of EthicsIn 1986, keynote presenter, Marshall Kaplan pressed the audience at the URISA Annual Conference to think about the impacts of


their work. He reminded those in attendance that every policy decision has impact on different parts of the community and that the GIS professional should know the implications of policies based on their work and make those impacts known to policy-makers. These thoughts formed the origin of the recognition that a GIS professional code of ethics was needed.

Codes of ethics typically speak of relationships between professionals and different parts of the community – the obliga-tions that professionals have to these special groups. The groups identified typically include: society, employer, colleagues and the profession, and individual citizens, and those obligations are based on treating them with respect and never merely as a means to an end. Kant, who taught philosophy and geography at the University of Königsberg, originated the moral philosophy called deontology. The URISA GIS Code of Ethics adopts it.

According to the literature (Frankel 1989), however, a pro-fessional code of ethics serves many additional purposes. A code of ethics: aids with professional socialization enhances a profession’s reputation serves as an enabling document acts as a source for public evaluation preserves entrenched professional biases deters unethical behavior provides a support system for members acts as a basis for adjudicating disputes

While all of these purposes have some merit, the Committee tried to focus on the more altruistic ones. Preserving entrenched professional biases would allow codification of traditional prac-tices, but some of the biases are likely more self-serving than mor-ally correct. It is unfortunate that Frankel’s list does not address principles and guidelines to help professionals think ethically and make tough decisions.

Background of the CodeIn 1993, Will Craig contacted* more than 100 professional orga-nizations asking for copies of their codes. The professions included those related to GIS professionals: planning, social sciences, natural sciences, environment, public affairs, and geographic sciences. Nearly half responded, with two-thirds of the respondents sending a copy of their code and one-third saying they did not have one. Many of the organizations without codes were in the process of developing one. The results were presented at the 1993 URISA and GIS/LIS confer-ences and were also published in the URISA Journal (Craig 1993).

* Such research would be much easier today. The Center for the Study of Ethics (CSEP) in the Professions at the Illinois Institute of Technology has a wonderful web site, with many resources including a collection of codes from many societies and some analysis of them. See http://www.iit.edu/departments/csep. While The Center has been around since 1976, the information they have collected has not been readily accessible until it ap-peared on the web.

In addition to finding the common reference to obligations that professionals have to special groups, Craig found that sanc-tions are addressed in some codes and include penalties ranging from admonition to termination of membership. Enforcing sanc-tions, however, runs the risk of legal battles based on restricting the ability of an individual to earn a living – a lesson sorely learned by other societies. The codes of societies that do include sanctions usually have quite detailed criteria for proper conduct – in the GIS context, this might include such things as a requirement to use a scale bar instead of a ratio on maps because the ratio can get distorted during photocopying. The list of rules of conduct could be endless.

When the URISA Board of Directors established the GIS Certification Committee in 1998, it also placed the responsibility for developing a Code of Ethics on the Committee. In response, the Committee developed a proposed Code of Ethics and pub-lished it on the URISA web site in 2002.The current version of this code follows in Appendix B.

Overview of the CodeA positive tone is taken throughout the GIS Professional Code of Ethics. The Code requires GIS professionals to commit themselves to doing the right thing, as opposed to admonishing them to avoid illegal or inappropriate acts. The problem with listing acts to be avoided is that there are usually reasonable exceptions to any avoidance rule and there is implicit approval of any act not on the list. By taking a positive tone, the code attempts to foster an attitude of respect for others.

As with most of the codes studied, the GIS Professional Code of Ethics addresses the obligations that GIS professionals have to the different parts of the community. Accordingly, it is divided into four parts:• Obligations to society• Obligations to employers and funders• Obligations to colleagues and the profession• Obligations to individuals in society

A small group of people were involved in drafting the initial version of the code, which was then released for public comment, review, and revision at URISA’s web site. Input from private-sec-tor representatives, for example, affected wording about sharing data and about respecting individual privacy. Statements were kept as short as possible and expanded where necessary for our profession.

Next Steps for the Code of EthicsThe proposed Code of Ethics was available for public review at URISA’s web site until November 15, 2002. After that date, the URISA GIS Certification Committee is reviewing all comments and the code will be revised one additional time, then passed to the URISA Board of Directors for approval and acceptance. It is expected that the newly formed GIS Certification Institute will then assume responsibility for the Code and its maintenance be-

http://www.iit.edu/departments/csep


cause it is expected that agreeing to abide by the Code of Ethics will be a requirement for certification. As it will provide ethical guidance for anyone, certified or not, it is also anticipated that other GIS-related institutions will adopt the GIS Professional Code of Ethics.

Once finalized, a shorter version of the Code will be created and widely distributed. That version will highlight the first two levels in the Code (e.g., do the best work possible) but will exclude details such as making full use of education and skills. That is referred to this as the “refrigerator magnet” version of the code in hopes that it might become well known, even memorized by professionals. The worst fate for a code of ethics is obscurity.

The last steps planned include adding resources to assist the GIS professional with ethical dilemmas. The code is a starting point, but links to on-line resources such as Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions (CSEP) and the Poynter Center at the University of Indiana (http://www.indiana.edu/~poynter/) are needed. The Committee plans to develop and link to a wide variety of case studies that present dilemmas faced by the GIS professional. Most ethicists agree that the best way to build ethical muscle is to take on tough problems, weigh them, and then see how others have responded. Existing resources provide many case studies, but few deal with GIS-related issues. The Committee will be looking widely for help in building this library of case studies over the foreseeable future.

ConclusionThe implementation of professional certification and adoption of a code of ethics for GIS professionals finally establish professional and ethical standards for our industry. The proposals documented in this article provide a detailed and comprehensive plan for defining and evaluating GIS professional practice and conduct. They are profes-sion-based in that they have been developed and will be enforced by members of our own profession and not a government agency. They are characterized by the following: multiple evaluators of the skills and conduct of people in our profession: educators who provide the skills and test our understanding of them; employers and clients who provide the work and evaluate our performance; and peers who provide feedback to our professional activities and products.

For the first time since the 1960s, when geospatial informa-tion technology was first being developed and used, professionals have a formal means to identify what they do. For the first time, the GIS profession can be identified.

References

Craig, W.J., 1993, A GIS Code of Ethics: What Can We Learn from Other Organizations? Journal of the Urban and Re-gional Information Systems Association, 5(2), 13-16 (See http://www.urisa.org/certification/craigeth.pdf ).

Frankel, M.S., 1989, Professional Codes: Why, How and With What Impact? Journal of Business Ethics, 8, 109-115.

Goodchild, M.F. and K.K. Kemp, 1992, GIS Accreditation: What are the Options? ACSM Bulletin, Nov/Dec 1992.

Obermeyer, N.J., 1993, Certifying GIS Professionals: Challenges and Alternatives. Journal of the Urban and Regional Informa-tion Systems Association, 5(1).

Pugh, D.L., 1989, Professionalism in Public Administration: Problems, Perspectives, and the Role of ASPA. Public Ad-ministration Review, 49, 1-8.

Somers, R., 2000, Defining the GIS Profession and Debating Cer-tification and Regulation. Geo Info Systems, 10, 22-29.

Wikle, T.A., 1998, Continuing Education and Competency Programmes in GIS. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 12(5), 491-507.

Appendix A: The Certification Program for GIS Professionals(Draft 12/04/02)This Draft is Subject to Change

SummaryThe GIS Certification Program for GIS professionals is a volun-tary program that is intended to acknowledge the professional achievements of those people whose primary job responsibility involves the use of geospatial data technology. It is not a program for general users of GIS technology.

The GIS Certification Institute (www.gisci.org) administers the program by reviewing all applications and either accepting or rejecting them. The GISCI, then, is the certifying body for all GIS professionals whose applications have been accepted.

The program is a point-based system that is self-documented and calculated by the individual seeking certification. It does not include an examination.

Applicants must document points in three categories that record the individual’s educational and professional accomplish-ments. The categories in which points may be earned consist of educational achievement, professional experience, and profes-sional contributions.

The minimum amounts of points required in each are as follows:

Educational Achievement: 30 pointsProfessional Experience: 60 pointsProfessional Contributions: 8 points

An additional 52 points are required in any of the categories or in a combination of the three. Thus, the minimum amount of points that an applicant must have in order to be certified is 150 points.

Certification RenewalIn order to retain certification, the Certified GIS Professional must maintain currency with the profession and document those activi-

http://www.indiana.edu/~poynter/

http://www.urisa.org/certification/craigeth.pdf


ties periodically. He or she must earn additional points in each of the three achievement categories within five years of initially being certified or previously renewed to remain certified. If the Certified GIS Professional fails to earn the minimum renewal points during that period, then he or she is no longer considered professionally certified by the GIS Certification Institute.

Minimum Required Points for Initial Certification Experience is the most important factor in applying skills to real world problems, and education plays a very important role in providing the knowledge and intellectual maturity required to approach problems and communicate solutions effectively. In addition, professionals must contribute to the advancement of the profession by donating their skills in professional efforts not designed for individual compensation, but rather to maintain the fundamental health of the Profession.

This forms the basis for the minimum number of points required in each category. The minimums are based upon a model GIS Professional who possess the following characteristics: a baccalaureate degree in any field supplemented with a number of courses, workshops, seminars, conferences, and other documented educational activities whose subject matter relates directly to GIS and geospatial data technologies; at least four years of experience in a position that involves spatial data compilation, teaching, etc. (fewer years if in GIS analysis, design, or programming; and more years if in a GIS user position); and a modest record of participating in GIS conferences, publications, or GIS-related events (such as GIS-Day).

Flexibility is important, of course. GISCI recognizes that there are many professionals who should qualify but do not have the formal background that is currently available to those who are now at the beginning of their careers, and that there are other professionals who have not yet built a record or do not have institutional support to contribute back to the profession. As a result, points for a variety of different activities within the three categories of Education, Experience, and Contributions allow those non-typical professionals to qualify with different points that add up to equivalent levels. With this in mind, the minimum number of points needed to become a certified GIS Profes-sional as detailed in the three point schedules given below is 150 points. Thus, all applicants are expected to document achievements valued at a minimum of 150 points. To ensure that applicants have a broad foundation, specific minimums in each of the three achievement categories must be met or exceeded. These minimums are as follows:

Education: 30 points Experience: 60 points Contributions: 8 points

The additional 52 points can be counted from any of the three categories. The applicant has complete flexibility in decid-ing how to make up this difference. In other words, the 52 points

can be made up from any combination of points from any one (or more) of the categories. Schedules for how to accumulate points are given below.

Education Points While formal educational experiences may not contribute as much as experience to a GIS professional’s qualifications, they certainly do have the potential to be valuable means of acquiring the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that individuals need to be successful in any profession. These guidelines are meant to encourage practitioners to seek out continuing education oppor-tunities while providing incentives to education providers to build substantive GIS programs with quality courses. The GISCI is not an accrediting body, and therefore will not attempt to evaluate the quality of educational institutions or programs. Instead, it will ensure that individuals who seek certification have success-fully participated in a minimum of relevant, formal educational experiences.

Minimum educational achievement: The minimum quali-fication for initial certification is the equivalent of a baccalaureate degree in any field, supplemented by formal GIS-related courses or workshops completed as part of, or in addition to, a formal degree or GIS certificate program. Practitioners without a formal degree cre-dential can fulfill education point requirements through an equivalent combination of credit and non-credit courses and workshops.

Rationale: With or without a concentration in GIS-related studies, baccalaureate degrees do not guarantee that individuals possess the knowledge and skills required to be effective GIS practitioners. What a four-year college education does provide, however, is the opportunity for individuals to develop the intellectual maturity required to approach complex problems systematically and critically, as well as the communication skills needed to articulate not only the capabilities and benefits of GIS technology, but also its limitations. Society deserves GIS profes-sionals who are broadly educated. On the other hand, all GIS professionals (as well as their employers and clients) are likely to benefit from the professional’s participation in at least a few formal educational experiences focused on GIS science, technol-ogy, and/or applications.

The Education Point Schedule outlined in the table below consists of two parts: • Credential Points: points earned through successful

completion of a formal degree or certificate program offered by accredited1 educational institutions; and

• Course Points: points earned through successful completion of individual courses, workshops, and other formal, documented educational activities whose subject matter relates directly to GIS science, technology, and/or applications.2

Applicants may claim a total number of Education points equal to the sum of Credential Points plus Course Points. The minimum number of Education points required for certification is 30 points. The maximum number of Education points that may


be claimed is 82 (the 30 point minimum plus the additional 52 points beyond the minimums for Education, Experience, and Contributions needed to reach 150 points total).

Credential Points: Applicants may claim credential points equal to the value of the highest degree or certificate earned. For example: a) An applicant who has earned a Masters degree or a Doctorate

degree may claim 25 points (the value of a “Masters degree or higher”).

b) An applicant who has earned an Associate degree and a Bachelors degree may claim 20 points (the value of a Bachelors degree).

c) An applicant who has earned no formal degrees, but who has earned a GIS Certificate3, may claim 5 points.

d) An Applicant who has earned degrees from non-U.S. institutions may claim points associated with the most comparable degree (justification required).

Degrees in any field of study awarded by accredited institu-tions may be counted. Certificates must be specific to GIS. Ap-plicants who claim credential points are expected to document their achievements with photocopies of their highest degree, or an original transcript that states degrees earned.

Course Points: In addition to Credential Points, applicants may claim Course Points for any GIS-related course, workshop, or other formal, documented educational activity. The number of points earned per course or workshop is proportional to the number of Student Activity Hours (the time that a student spends both inside and outside the classroom completing reading or homework assignments, studying, or other preparations) that each course en-tails. Student Activity Hours (SAH) for credit courses offered by colleges and universities are calculated by multiplying the number of credits for an individual course times three (a standard estimate for student activity per credit hour) and then multiplying the result by the duration of the course in weeks. One Course Point is awarded for every 40 documented Student Activity Hours. For example:a) A three-credit college or university course in GIS conducted

over a fifteen-week semester earns 3.375 points (3 credits × 3 activity hours per credit × 15 weeks, ÷ 40 activity hours per point);

b) A non-credit college or university course involving ten hours of effort per week over a ten-week quarter earns 2.5 points (10 hours per week × 10 weeks, ÷ 40 activity hours per point);

c) A non-credit course offered by a private company that involves 20 hours of effort earns 0.5 points (20 hours ÷ 40 activity hours per point);

d) A professional conference at which an applicant attended educational sessions for eight hours over two days earns 0.4 points (16 hours ÷ 40 activity hours per point); and

e) A pre-conference workshop lasting four hours earns 0.1 points (4 hours ÷ 40 activity hours per point).

Only formal courses and workshops that focus specifically upon GIS science, technology, and/or applications are eligible for

Course Points. Applicants who claim Course Points are expected to provide evidence of their achievements with photocopies of official transcripts, receipts, or comparable official documents. Relevant courses may be counted even if they were completed as part of a degree or certificate program for which the applicant has also claimed Credential Points.

Experience Achievement Points Job experience is the most important factor contributing to an individual’s qualifications because performing in a job gives one opportunities to become skilled at the application of GIS technology to real world problems. Failures as well as successes in these contexts provide valuable learning experiences that, in turn, allow growth and expansion of skill sets. In addition, the professional working environment, where one is often working with other GIS professionals who have different skill sets and different experiences, provides opportunities to gain knowledge from one’s peers. Successes, failures, and access to mentors all form skill development opportunities in the working experience, and the longer one is exposed to these opportunities, the more one is qualified to address new problems. Therefore, four years of experience be the minimum number of years required for GIS Certification.

The closer one’s job is to GIS analysis and design, the more credit should be given for those experiences. Data compilation, teaching, and similar responsibilities are jobs that do not require as broad an application of the technology or are jobs that profes-sionals hold towards the beginning of their careers, offering fewer successes, failures, and exposure to mentors, so a lesser amount of credit should apply to time in those positions. (More experiences are necessary to gain the needed skills.) Finally, an individual in a position that is considered a “User” of GIS software requires even more time to gain exposure to the number of experiences that provide skill development opportunities.

The draft worksheet shown in the EXPERIENCE POINT SCHEDULE table contains differing point values for these three experience classifications and a fourth for any experience in a su-pervisory or management GIS-related position. Personnel super-vision and project management experiences offer additional skill development opportunities that are valuable in a professional’s qualifications. Therefore, points are awarded for the number of years in a supervisory and/or management position in addition to the years spent in more technical positions.

Points in all four categories should be added together to de-termine the total number of Experience Points one has attained, because during the course of one’s career, it is possible that one has had all of these experiences.

Contribution Points The GIS Certification Program is an opportunity to define the profession of GIS. The However, the program should not be used as a personal yardstick for career development. As such, it must be recognized that professional contributions in the form


EDUCATION POINT SCHEDULE (initial as well as renewal)

1. Credential Points

a) Enter degree title, institution, year earned, and points associated with highest credential earned (attach documentation)

• Masters degree or higher = 25 points• Bachelors degree = 20 points• Associates degree = 10 points• GIS Certificate 3 = 5 points

b) Enter degree title, Institution, and associated point value of highest credential earned below

Degree or GIS Certificate Name Institution Year Earned Credential Points

2. Course Points (see accompanying Course Points Guidelines for sample calculations)

a) List relevant2 course titles, institutions, credits or CEUs (if any; attach documentation)b) List Student Activity Hours per credit, CEU, or course4 c) Calculate subtotal of Student Activity Hours per coursed) Divide subtotal by forty hours per point. Result is number of course points per course.e) Calculate Total Course Points.

Course title Institution Credit × Student activity hrs

(3/wk typical)

× Course duration

= Subtotal ÷ 40 hrs/pt= Course points

Total Course Points

3. Total Education Points (Credential Points + Course Points; maximum 82)

of conference planning, publications, committee/board participa-tion, outreach, and other related efforts are fundamental to the health of any profession.

This perspective is strongly supported by the allied ASPRS professional certification program objective to ‘encourage persons not yet fully qualified to work towards certification as a goal of professional achievement’ and ‘encourage certified persons, through the re-certification process, to continue their professional achieve-ments.’ The ASPRS certification process requires the documenta-tion of professional and technical contributions; and the renewal process requires the documentation of participation.

The ability to contribute can be limited by lack of adminis-trative support and resources; however, the program and the GIS community must not lower expectations to the lowest common denominator. Instead, a case should be made for the value of participation. In this way, GIS staff members can use Certification to convince their management that participation contributes to the education and personal well being of their staff.

In general, it is expected that an active professional is capable of attaining a minimum of two Contributions points per year,

but initial certification is expected to be weighted lighter and renewal heavier. This places greater pressure for contributions upon established professionals, and reduces the pressure on young professionals just beginning their careers to participate in such extramural activities. (Contribution Points are defined in the “CONTRIBUTION POINT SCHEDULE”).

In order to give everyone a large variety of choices in how they may contribute to their profession, we expanded the original list of Contributions to include many local, state, and regional activities. Many of these opportunities would not require extensive management support, including local community activities and “virtual” opportunities.

It must be emphasized, however, that work-related publica-tions and sales presentations are elements of work experience. Contributions are intended to recognize documents and activi-ties that relay lessons learned and techniques developed at work beyond the client and beyond the employer: to the profession as a whole.

Theses and dissertations are included in the Education section under coursework credit and no additional credit will be given.


Contributions GlossaryGIS Publication Any GIS-related book, editorial board, refereed paper, article,

conference paper, atlas, or map. This includes GIS-related papers and articles published in non-GIS publications. This does not include professional writing, nor the publication of academic theses and dissertations.

GIS Professional Association Involvement Participation in any national, federal, state, regional, local

GIS-related organization or board. This includes GIS software user groups.

GIS Conference Participation Participation in any national, federal, state, regional,

local GIS-related conference. This includes GIS software conferences. NOTE: credit is accrued for both a conference presentation and publication of same in the conference proceeding (see Item 1. GIS Publication)

GIS Awards Receipt of any performance award that is a direct reflection

of your work as a GIS professional or contributions to the GIS profession.

Other Contributions Other Contributions to the GIS profession in the form of

event organization and/or participation such as GIS Day activities, Career Day presentations about GIS as a profession, GIS outreach and education of legislators, and GIS-related workshop instructions. Community contributions may include active GIS-related listserver participation (1 pt / yr), GIS tech support to non-profits (1 pt / 8 hr), and GIS listserver/website management (3 pt / yr.). Other forms of contributions will be considered as submitted.

EXPERIENCE POINT SCHEDULE (initial as well as renewal)

Points for years in a GIS position of data analysis, system design, programming, or similar GIS position.

Points for years in a GIS position of data compilation, teaching, or similar position.

Points for years in a GIS user position

*Bonus points for years in a GIS supervisory or mgmt. position

(*points are additive to the other three positions)

_________ yearstimes 25 points/yr

= _______ points


= _______ points


= _______ points


= _______ points

TOTAL EXPERIENCE POINTS (Sum of the four above) = _________ points

Footnotes1 No accreditation program currently exists specifically for

GIS-related education programs. Most higher educational institutions in the U.S. are accredited, however, by one of the regional accrediting organizations associated with the Council for Higher Education Association (http://www.chea.org).

2 “GIS-related courses” are defined as those whose subject matter is subsumed by one or more of the eleven “knowledge areas” identified in the University Consortium on Geographic Information Sciences’ Model Curricula. Examples of relevant courses are outlined in a supplementary “Course Points Guidelines” document. It is the responsibility of the applicant to justify the applicability of particular courses to the satisfaction of the GISCI Review Board.

3 Many higher education institutions confer GIS Certificates to students who complete a prescribed number of credit or non-credit courses. Requirements vary widely. Only certificates that involve a minimum of 400 hours of student activity qualify for Credential points. Certificates earned in conjunction with or in addition to a formal degree may be credited through the Course Points schedule.

4 Student Activity Hours (SAH) are calculated as follows for credit courses:SAH = C × 3 × W)where C is the number of credits per course, 3 is the standard number of activity hours per credit, andW is the duration of the course in weeks

Continuing Education Units (CEUs) are typically allotted at one CEU per every ten hours of student activity. For other non-credit courses and workshops, Student Activity Hours is simply the time spent both inside and outside the classroom completing reading or homework assignments, studying, or other preparations


CONTRIBUTIONS POINT SCHEDULE (initial as well as renewal)

GIS Publications:

Publication Type: Formula Points Earned *Document Provided?

Book author/editor # of books times 15 pts per book =

Published atlas (as author) # of atlases times 15 pts per atlas =

Refereed paper # of papers times 5 pts per paper =

Published map (as author) # of maps times 5 pts per map =

Editorial Board # of years times 3 pt per year =

Article # of articles times 3 pts per article =

Paper in conference Proceedings # of papers times 2 pts per paper =

Newsletter Article # of articles times 1pt per article =

Note: Professional writing is credited as Experience. Publication of theses and dissertations is credited as Education.

GIS Professional Association Involvement:

Level of Involvement Formula Points Earned Document Provided?

Presidency # of terms times 5 pts per term =

Board membership # of terms times 4 pts per term =

Committee chairmanship # of terms times 3 pts per term =

Committee participation # of terms times 2 pts per term =

Association membership # of terms times 1 pt per term =

GIS Conference Participation:

Level of Involvement Formula Points Earned Document Provided ?

Conference chair # of conferences times 4 pts per =

Conference Committee Member # of conferences times 2 pts per =

Presentation/poster #of presentations times 1 pt per =

Note: Credit is accrued for both a conference presentation and publication of same in the conference proceedings (see item 1. GIS Publication).

GIS Awards Received:

Award Type Formula Points Earned Document Provided?

Employment award # of awards times 1 pt per award =

Local/regional/state award # of awards times 2 pts per award =

National award # of awards times 3 pts per award =

Other GIS Contributions:

Type: Formula Points Earned DocumentProvided?

Event organization (1) # of events times 2 pts =

Event participation (1) # of events times 1 pt =

Related community Contributions (2) # of events times 1-3 pts (variable) =

TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS POINTS (Sum the above points) =__________ points

(1) Examples: GIS Day, Career Day, K-12 Event, legislative initiative, workshop instruction(2) Examples: Active listserver participation (1 yr/1 pt), tech support to non-profit (8 hr/1 pt), listserver/website management (1 yr/3 pts)(*) Documentation of included points needs to be included whenever possible. If documentation is provided the applicant should write Yes (Y) in the space provided. If documentation is not included the applicant should write No (N). Documents need to be included in the same order in the portfolio as they are listed on the above schedule. The existing benchmark is that the candidate needs to provide adequate documentation for at least 50% of the claims made.


Appendix B: A GIS Code of Ethics1

(Draft 11/19/02)This Draft is Subject to Change

This Code of Ethics is intended to provide guidelines for GIS (geo-graphic information system) professionals. It should help profession-als make appropriate and ethical choices. It should provide a basis for evaluating their work and the work of others from a moral point of view. Individuals violating this code will be criticized by their professional colleagues. By following this code, GIS professionals will help to preserve and enhance public trust in the discipline.

This code is based on the ethical principle of always treat-ing others with respect and never merely as means to an end. It requires us to consider the impact of our actions on other persons and to modify our actions to reflect the respect and concern we have for them. It emphasizes our obligations to other persons, to our colleagues and the profession, to our em-ployers, and to society as a whole. Those obligations provide the organizing structure for these guidelines.

This code draws on the work of many professional societ-ies. It is not surprising that many codes of ethics provide similar guidelines to professionals, because they are based upon similar conceptions of morality. A few of the guidelines that are of par-ticular interest to the GIS profession include the encouragement to make data and findings widely available, to document data and products, to be actively involved in data retention and security, to show respect for copyrights and other intellectual property rights, and to display concern for the data about individuals created through geospatial or data-base manipulations.

A positive tone is taken throughout the text of this code. GIS professionals commit themselves to ethical behavior rather than merely seeking to avoid specific acts. The problems with listing acts to be avoided are: 1) there are usually reasonable exceptions to any avoidance rule and 2) there is implicit approval of any act not on the list. Certainly the positive actions listed here are not exhaustive, but they do provide a good framework for dealing with most issues. By taking a positive tone, this code attempts to encourage an attitude focused on respect for others.

One final note: sometimes a GIS professional may become stuck in a dilemma where two right actions are in conflict with each other or any course of action violates some aspect of this code. Some help might come from consulting works such as How Good People Make Tough Choices (Kidder 1995), which offers a decision guide. Ultimately, a professional must reflect carefully on a situation before making tough decisions. Contemplating vari-ous ethical approaches2 may be useful in reaching a decision:• View persons who exemplify morality as your own guide

(Virtue Ethics) • Attempt to maximize the happiness of everyone affected

(Utilitarianism) • Only follow maxims of conduct that everyone else could

adopt (Kantianism) • Always treat other persons as ends, never merely as means

(Deontology)

I. Obligations to SocietyThe GIS professional recognizes the impact of his or her work on society as a whole, subgroups of society including geographic or demographic minorities, on future generations, and inclusive of social, economic, environmental, or technical fields of endeavor. Obligations to society shall be paramount when there is conflict with other obligations. Therefore, the GIS professional will:1. Do the Best Work Possible

a. Be objective, use due care, and make full use of education and skills.

b. Practice integrity and not be swayed by the demands of others.

c. Provide full, clear, and accurate information. d. Strive to do what is right, not just what is legal. e. Do no harm.

2. Contribute to the Community to the Extent Possible, Feasible, and Advisablea. Make data and findings widely available. b. Strive for broad citizen involvement in problem

definition, data identification, analysis, and decision-making.

c. Donate services to community organizations. 3. Speak Out About Issues

a. Call attention to emerging public issues and identify appropriate responses based on personal expertise.

b. Call attention to unprofessional work of others. First take concerns to those persons; if satisfaction is not gained and the problems warrant, additional people and organizations should be notified.

c. Admit when a mistake has been made and make corrections where possible.

II. Obligations to Employers and Funding Bodies

The GIS professional recognizes that he or she has been hired to deliver needed products and services. The employer (or funding body) expects quality work and professional conduct. Therefore the GIS professional will:

1. Deliver Quality Worka. Be qualified for the tasks accepted. b. Keep current in the field through readings and

professional development. c. Identify risks and the potential means to reduce them. d. Define alternative strategies to reach employer/funder

goals, if possible, and the implications of each. e. Document work so that it can be used by others. This

includes metadata and program documentation. 2. Have a Professional Relationship

a. Hold information confidential unless authorized to release it.

b. Avoid all conflicts of interest with clients and employers if possible, but when they are unavoidable, disclose any conflict of interest.


c. Avoid soliciting, accepting, or offering any gratuity or inappropriate benefit connected to a potential or existing business or working relationship.

d. Accept work reviews as a means to improve performance.

e. Honor contracts and assigned responsibilities. f. Accept decisions of employers and clients, unless they

are illegal or unethical. g. Help develop security, backup, retention, and disposal

rules. h. Acknowledge and accept rules about the personal use

of employer resources. This includes computers, data, telecommunication equipment, and other resources.

3. Be Honest in Representationsa. State professional qualifications truthfully. b. Make honest proposals that allow the work to be

completed for the resources requested. c. Deliver an hour’s work for an hour’s pay. d. Describe products fully. e. Be forthcoming about any limitations of data, software,

assumptions, models used, methods, and analysis.

III. Obligations to Colleagues and the Profession

The GIS professional recognizes the value of being part of a community of other professionals. Together, we support each other and add to the stature of the field. Therefore, the GIS professional will:

1. Respect the Work of Others.a. Cite the work of others whenever possible and

appropriate. b. Honor the intellectual property rights of others. This

includes their rights in software and data. c. Accept and provide fair critical comments on professional

work. d. Recognize the limitations one’s own knowledge and skills

and recognize and use the skills of other professionals as needed. This includes both those in other disciplines and GIS professionals with deeper skills in critical sub-areas of the field.

e. Work respectfully and capably with others in GIS and other disciplines.

f. Respect working relationships and avoid interfering in employer/employee and client/contractor relationships.

g. Deal honestly and fairly with prospective employees, contractors, and vendors.

2. Contribute to the Disciplinea. Publish results so others can learn about them. b. Volunteer time to professional educational and

organizational efforts: local or national. c. Support individual colleagues in their professional

development. Special attention should be given to underrepresented groups whose diverse backgrounds will add to the strength of the profession.

IV. Obligations to Individuals in Society

The GIS professional recognizes the impact of his or her work on individual people and will strive to avoid harm to them. Therefore, the GIS professional will:

1. Respect Privacya. Protect individual privacy, especially about sensitive

information. b. Be especially careful with new information created

about an individual through GIS-based manipulations (such as geocoding) or the combination of two or more databases.

2. Respect Individualsa. Encourage individual autonomy. Examples of autonomy

that might be encouraged include allowing individuals to: withhold consent about being added to a database, correct information about themselves in a database, or remove themselves from a database.

b. Avoid undue intrusions into the lives of individuals. c. Be truthful when disclosing information about an

individual. d. Treat all individuals equally, without regard to race,

gender, or other personal characteristic not related to the task at hand.

BibliographyAmerican Institute of Certified Planners. 1991. AICP Code of

Ethics and Professional Conduct, http://www.planning.org/ethics/conduct.html.

ASPRS. 2001. Code of Ethics of the American Society for Pho-togrammetry and Remote Sensing, http://www.asprs.org/asprs/membership/certification/appendix_a.html.

Association for Computing Machinery. 1992. ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct, http://www.acm.org/constitution/code.html.

Craig, William J. 1993. A GIS Code of Ethics: What Can We Learn from Other Organizations? Journal of the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association, 5(2): 13-16. See http://www.urisa.org/certification/craigeth.pdf.

Edson, Curtis, Brian Garcia, Jordan Hantman, Nicole Hartz, Hannah Jensen, Jill Leale, Kelley Lewelling, John Marks, Jeff Maxted, Bruce Moore, Brendan Vierk Rivera, Anna Weitzel. 2001. “Code of Ethics for GIS Profession-als,” paper for IES 400, GIS and Society, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madi-son. See http://www.ersc.wisc.edu/academics/courses/IES400GISandSociety/Code%20of%20Ethics/ethics_code1.pdf

Kidder, Rushworth M. 1995. How Good People Make Tough Choices, New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc.

http://www.planning.org/ethics/conduct.html

http://www.planning.org/ethics/conduct.html

http://www.asprs.org/asprs/membership/certification/appendix_a.html

http://www.asprs.org/asprs/membership/certification/appendix_a.html

http://www.acm.org/constitution/code.html

http://www.acm.org/constitution/code.html

http://www.urisa.org/certification/craigeth.pdf

http://www.ersc.wisc.edu/academics/courses/IES400GISandSociety/Code%20of%20Ethics/ethics_code1.pdf



64 URISA Journal • Vol. 15, No. 1 • 2003

Olson, Andrew. 1998. Authoring a Code: Observations on Process and Organization, http://www.iit.edu/departments/csep/PublicWWW/codes/coe/Writing_A_Code.html, Center for Study of Ethics in the Professions, Illinois Institute of Technology.

Pennsylvania Society of Land Surveyors, 1998. Manual of Practice for Professional Land Surveyors in the Com-monwealth of Pennsylvania. http://www.psls.org/info/manualpractice.htm

Rachels, James. 1999. The Elements of Moral Philosophy, Boston: McGraw-Hill College.

Footnotes1 Many people provided significant input to this document.

Special thanks go to James Fetzer, Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy, University of Minnesota, Duluth, Harlan Onsrud, Professor of Spatial Information Science and Engineering, University of Maine, and Rebecca Somers, President, Somers-St. Claire.

2 For a thorough discussion of these theories, see Rachels (1999).

ChairWilliam HuxholdUniversity of Wisconsin at Milwaukee

Karen KempUniversity of Redlands, CA

Lyna WigginsRutgers University

Nancy ObermeyerIndiana State University

Al Butler MilePost Zero

Eugene TurnerCalifornia State University at Northridge

Geney TerryEl Dorado County, CA

Barry Waite City of Carson, CA

Will CraigUniversity of Minnesota

Ann JohnsonESRI

Lynda WayneGeoMaxim/FGDC

Suzanne WechslerCalifornia State University at Long Beach

Peirce EichelbergerChester County GIS, PA

Heather AnnulisThe University of Southern Mississippi

Cyndi GaudetThe University of Southern Mississippi

Warren RobertsRio Hondo College, CA

Mark SallingCleveland State University

Josh GreenfeldNew Jersey Institute of Technology

Timothy CaseParsons Brinckerhoff

Robert AagenbrugUniversity of South FloridaDavid DibiasePenn State University

Joseph Ferreira Jr.Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Jury KongaGEOSYS Consulting

Karen ZeraCity of High Point, North Carolina

Judy BoydESRI

Keith FournierLucas County Auditor’s Office

Mike RenslowAmerican Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing

Robert BarrUniversity of Manchester (United Kingdom)

Sherman PayneDepartment of Information TechnologyCity of Detroit, Michigan

Steven FrenchGeorgia Institute of Technology

William BowdyNorthern Kentucky Area Planning Commission

Tom WikleOklahoma State University

Joel MorrisonThe Ohio State University

Joe SewashState of Tennessee OIRGIS Services

Elaine WhiteheadVolusia County, Florida

Roger ChamardAmerican Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing

Rebecca SomersSomers-St. Claire

Curt SumnerAmerican Congress on Survey and Mapping

The URISA Certification Committee:

http://www.iit.edu/departments/csep/PublicWWW/codes/coe/Writing_A_Code.html

http://www.iit.edu/departments/csep/PublicWWW/codes/coe/Writing_A_Code.html

http://www.psls.org/info/manualpractice.htm

http://www.psls.org/info/manualpractice.htm

��

��

Copyright © 2003 ESRI. All rights reserved. The ESRI globe logo, ESRI, ArcGIS, the ArcGIS logo, ArcMap, ArcSDE, ArcIMS, ArcScan, Geography Network, ArcInfo, ArcView, ArcEditor, www.esri.com, and @esri.com are trademarks, registered trademarks, or service marks of ESRI in the United States, the European Community, or certain other jurisdictions. Other companies and products mentioned herein are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective trademark owners.

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��