3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Accelerating ethics, empathy, and equity in geographic information science

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Significance

          There has been a groundswell in the support needed to center ethics, empathy, and equity in scientific thought and practice. Drawing on our experience from GIScience, our goal is to accelerate ethical, empathetic, and equitable scientific practices. Many of the opportunities and challenges we outline are broadly applicable and will stimulate the conversations needed to accelerate transformation of science practice and culture. With an emphasis on practical suggestions for reshaping science, we invite all scientists to join in a fundamentally different approach. This paper is a step toward mobilizing the scientific community toward ethics, empathy, and equity by inviting humility, broader measures of excellence and success, diversity in our networks, and the creation of pathways to inclusive education.

          Abstract

          Science has traditionally been driven by curiosity and followed one goal: the pursuit of truth and the advancement of knowledge. Recently, ethics, empathy, and equity, which we term “the 3Es,” are emerging as new drivers of research and disrupting established practices. Drawing on our own field of GIScience (geographic information science), our goal is to use the geographic approach to accelerate the response to the 3Es by identifying priority issues and research needs that, if addressed, will advance ethical, empathic, and equitable GIScience. We also aim to stimulate similar responses in other disciplines. Organized around the 3Es we discuss ethical issues arising from locational privacy and cartographic integrity, how our ability to build knowledge that will lead to empathy can be curbed by data that lack representativeness and by inadvertent inferential error, and how GIScientists can lead toward equity by supporting social justice efforts and democratizing access to spatial science and its tools. We conclude with a call to action and invite all scientists to join in a fundamentally different science that responds to the 3Es and mobilizes for change by engaging in humility, broadening measures of excellences and success, diversifying our networks, and creating pathways to inclusive education. Science united around the 3Es is the right response to this unique moment where society and the planet are facing a vast array of challenges that require knowledge, truth, and action.

          Related collections

          Most cited references107

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          OpenStreetMap: User-Generated Street Maps

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Diversity–Innovation Paradox in Science

            Prior work finds a diversity paradox: Diversity breeds innovation, yet underrepresented groups that diversify organizations have less successful careers within them. Does the diversity paradox hold for scientists as well? We study this by utilizing a near-complete population of ∼1.2 million US doctoral recipients from 1977 to 2015 and following their careers into publishing and faculty positions. We use text analysis and machine learning to answer a series of questions: How do we detect scientific innovations? Are underrepresented groups more likely to generate scientific innovations? And are the innovations of underrepresented groups adopted and rewarded? Our analyses show that underrepresented groups produce higher rates of scientific novelty. However, their novel contributions are devalued and discounted: For example, novel contributions by gender and racial minorities are taken up by other scholars at lower rates than novel contributions by gender and racial majorities, and equally impactful contributions of gender and racial minorities are less likely to result in successful scientific careers than for majority groups. These results suggest there may be unwarranted reproduction of stratification in academic careers that discounts diversity’s role in innovation and partly explains the underrepresentation of some groups in academia.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Opening the archive: How free data has enabled the science and monitoring promise of Landsat

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
                Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
                pnas
                pnas
                Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
                National Academy of Sciences
                0027-8424
                1091-6490
                4 May 2022
                10 May 2022
                4 May 2022
                : 119
                : 19
                : e2119967119
                Affiliations
                [1] aDepartment of Geography, University of California , Santa Barbara, CA 93106;
                [2] bEnvironmental Systems Research Institute , Redlands, CA 92373;
                [3] cCollege of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University , Corvallis, OR 97330
                Author notes
                1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: trisalyn@ 123456ucsb.edu or dwright@ 123456esri.com .

                Contributed by D. J. Wright; received November 10, 2021; accepted February 22, 2022; reviewed by Sarah Elwood, Diana Liverman, and Nadine Schuurmann

                This contribution is part of the special series of Inaugural Articles by members of the National Academy of Sciences elected in 2021.

                Author contributions: T.A.N., M.F.G., and D.J.W. wrote the paper.

                2T.A.N., M.F.G., and D.J.W. contributed equally to this work.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2537-6971
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1075-3471
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2997-7611
                Article
                202119967
                10.1073/pnas.2119967119
                9171629
                35507875
                2edcafd9-1621-476f-b693-60572dcf212d
                Copyright © 2022 the Author(s). Published by PNAS.

                This open access article is distributed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND).

                History
                : 22 February 2022
                Page count
                Pages: 12
                Categories
                1
                411
                417
                Social Sciences
                Environmental Sciences
                Physical Sciences
                Computer Sciences
                Inaugural Article

                ethics,empathy,equity,giscience,culture of science
                ethics, empathy, equity, giscience, culture of science

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content184

                Cited by6

                Most referenced authors518