understanding the ecosystem of geospatial research and ...understanding the ecosystem of geospatial...

Understanding the Ecosystem of Geospatial Research and Service

in UniversitiesWeihe Wendy Guan and Elizabeth Hess

Center for Geographic AnalysisInstitute for Quantitative Social Science

Harvard University

Background

• Geographic Information Science (GIS) is a thriving applied science.• There are research of GIS, and research with GIS (apply GIS in the

research of other subjects)• Research of GIS = GIS research• Research with GIS = GIS service

• There are benefits from a tight connection between GIS research and service:• Research outcomes feed into applications, enabling service to other fields.• Unmet needs from the application fields push the envelope of GIS research,

generating new topics and directions.• Many universities have established GIS centers (or units).

Questions

• How do these GIS centers balance between GIS research and service?• If GIS research belongs to a department, where does GIS service belong?• How are GIS service funded?• Are there significant differences in these centers’ operational scale, scope,

responsibility and priority?• If yes, what are the factors determining them? Size of the university? Public

or private? With or without a geography department? Length of center history?• What are the common and unique challenges and opportunities for these

centers?

Online Survey

• Is easy to understand and quick to complete. The estimated completion time was within 10 minutes.• Must support quantitative analysis. Responses were captured in a

spreadsheet, and most questions were multiple choices.• Provides flexibility. Allows for entering additional information beyond the

listed choices.• Protects privacy. Allows the participants to specify which part(s) of their

answers can be shared.• No cost. The survey was implemented as a Google Form with a link

distributed by emails, and the incentive for taking the survey was to receive the sharable parts of the survey responses in its original format as soon as the survey was closed.

Sections in the Survey1. Introduction – explaining the purpose and conditions of the survey.2. General Information – capturing the university, organization and responder’s name

and contact information.3. Administrative Information – capturing the age and affiliation of the center.4. Financial Information – capturing the budget and income sources of the center.5. Personnel Information – capturing the number of employees and type of jobs.6. Responsibilities – capturing the center’s roles in teaching, research and services.7. Operational Information – capturing the center’s hardware and software portfolios.8. Collaboration and Communication – capturing the center’s interaction with people

and organizations internal and external of the university.9. Challenges and Opportunities – capturing the center’s biggest challenges and most

promising direction of growth.10. Permission for sharing – capturing the responders’ preferences on sharing their

answers with others.

Invited to the Survey

• Subscribers on the mailing lists of twelve (12) GIS related communities• The mailing lists included local, regional, national and international communities• Their focuses of interest ranged from libraries to classrooms, from teaching to

research, from data creation to mapping to software development, from commercial products to open source tools

• Contact emails of forty-four (44) GIS related centers• Invitees included centers in public and private universities in the USA and several

other countries• These centers have a diverse affiliation in both academic fields and administrative

organizations within their universities

• There are some overlap between the mailing lists and direct invitees.

GIS Communities Invited to the Survey

• Boston Open Source Geo• Crisis Mappers• Esri Higher Education Listserv• GIS for Libraries• GIS in National Institute for Technology in Liberal Education• GIS Teaching Alliance (GISTA) Boston• International Association of Chinese Professionals in Geographic Information Science

(CPGIS)

• Maps, Air Photo, GIS Forum - Map Librarianship • New England Chapter of the Urban & Regional Information Systems Association

(NEURISA)

• Northeast Arc Users Group• Open Geo Portal• University Consortium for Geographic Information Science (UCGIS)

Results of the Survey

• The survey was open from February 22 to April 19 of 2018 (8 weeks).• Received 85 responses, with a few duplications.• The valid responses represented 81 centers in 76 universities from 12

countries.

• 83% of them are from the USA.• Other countries include Canada, Denmark, France, Hong Kong

(China), Italy, Japan, Netherland, Portugal, Singapore, Sweden and Switzerland.

• 60% are public universities, 40% are private universities.

Number of surveyed centers in public or private universities, with or without a geography department

Number of Centers Public University Private University Total

With Geography Department 44 10 54

Without Geography Department 5 22 27

Total 49 32 81

Distribution of surveyed universities by the total number of enrolled students

2

9 10

2826

6

Num

ber o

f Uni

vers

ities

in th

e Su

rvey

Number of Enrolled Students in the Universities50,000

Text cloud of words in the center names

Text cloud of words in the names of the administrative homes for the centers

Administrative Homes of the Centers

Department26%

Library26%

School or College

18%

University central admin

14%

Other12%

University IT4%

Number of Centers Established by Year

R² = 0.3099

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

Centers’ Age by Budget Size

0

1020

30

40

50

60

LT$10

0,000

$100

,000 -

$250

,000

$250

,000 -

$500

,000

$500

,000 -

$750

,000

$750

,000 -

$1,00

0,000

$1,00

0,000

- $2,5

00,00

0

$2,50

0,000

- $5,0

00,00

0

$5,00

0,000

- $10

,000,0

00

GT$1

0,000

,000

Minimum Age Average Age Maximum Age

Size of Universities by Centers’ Budget Size

01000020000300004000050000600007000080000

LT$10

0,000

$100

,000 -

$250

,000

$250

,000 -

$500

,000

$500

,000 -

$750

,000

$750

,000 -

$1,00

0,000

$1,00

0,000

- $2,5

00,00

0

$2,50

0,000

- $5,0

00,00

0

$5,00

0,000

- $10

,000,0

00

GT$1

0,000

,000

Minimum Student Number Average Student Number Maximum Student Number

Number of Centers by Annual Operating Budget – Grouped by University Type

0

5

10

15

20

25

LT$10

0,000

$100

,000 -

$250

,000

$250

,000 -

$500

,000

$500

,000 -

$750

,000

$750

,000 -

$1,00

0,000

$1,00

0,000

- $2,5

00,00

0

$2,50

0,000

- $5,0

00,00

0

$5,00

0,000

- $10

,000,0

00

GT$1

0,000

,000

Number of Centers in Public Universities

Number of Centers in Private Universities

Number of Centers by Annual Operating Budget –Grouped by with or without Geography Department

0

5

10

15

20

25

< $10

0,000

$100

,000 -

$250

,000

$250

,000 -

$500

,000

$500

,000 -

$750

,000

$750

,000 -

$1,00

0,000

$1,00

0,000

- $2,5

00,00

0

$2,50

0,000

- $5,0

00,00

0

$5,00

0,000

- $10

,000,0

00

> $10

,000,0

00

With Geography Department

Without Geography Department

10 Percent of Centers with 10% or more Funding from These Sources

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

a dep

artme

nt

a scho

ol or

colleg

e

a libra

ry

unive

rsity

IT

unive

rsity

centra

l…

publi

c/priv

ate gr

ants

intern

al serv

ice ch

arges

extern

al serv

ice co

ntract

s

produ

ct sal

es/roy

alty

dona

tion/g

ifts

endo

wmen

t

With Geography DepartmentWithout Geography Department

Percent of Centers Offering These Teaching Programs

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

Degree orcertificateprogram

Executiveeducationprogram

Continuingeducationprogram

Non-credittrainingprogram

MOOC or onlinecourses

Guest lecturesor lab modules

in creditcourses where

the leadinstructor is not

a centerpersonnel



Percent of Centers Engaged in These Research Projects

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

sponsoredprojects where

center/unitpersonnel is PI or

co-PI

sponsoredprojects where

center/unitpersonnel is

participant butnot PI or co-PI

projects fundedby other parts of

the university

projects fundedinternally by the

center/unit'sbudget


Percent of Centers Providing These Services

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

help

desk

consul

tation

or pr

oject

scopin

g

propo

sal de

velop

ment

for gr

ant

out-s

ource

d con

tract

mana

geme

nt

field d

ata co

llectio

n

data

disco

very a

nd ac

quisit

ion

data

proces

sing a

nd an

alysis

cartog

raphic

prod

uction

autom

ation

scrip

ting o

r tool d

evelop

ment

appli

cation

devel

opme

nt an

d host

ing

With Geography DepartmentWithout Geopgraphy Department

Percent of Centers Owning These Equipment

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Physicalservers

Labcomputers

Ruggedtablets

GPS units Drones Scanners Plotters


Percent of Centers Using These Hosting Services

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Physical serversmanaged by the

center/unit

Physical serversmanaged by

other IT teamswithin theuniversity

Virtual serversprovided by

other IT teamswithin theuniversity

Virtual serversprovided by acommercial

company (such asAWS)

Virtual serversprovided by aresearch cloud(such as MassOpen Cloud)



Percent of Centers Managing These Site Licenses

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

Esri (ArcGIS,etc.)

HexagonGeospatial

(ERDASImagine,

etc. )

Harris(ENVI, etc.)

Trimble(eCognition,

etc.)

Clark Labs(TerrSet,

etc.)

SafeSoftware

(FME, etc.)

Google(Google

Maps APIsPremium,

etc.)

Carto(CARTOBuilder,

etc.)


Percent of Centers Host These Events

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Seminars orcolloquia

Symposiums orworkshops

Conferences Hackathons orcode sprints

Field trips


Percent of Centers Using These Communication Channels

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Websi

te

Mailin

g list

s

News

letter

sBlo

gs

Twee

ts

YouT

ube o

r Vim

eo ch

anne

ls

Faceb

ook

Linke

dIn


Number of centers as members of GIS related organizationsOrganization Name Organization

Abbreviation

Number of Centers /

Units as a Member

University Consortium for Geographic Information Science UCGIS 23Open Geospatial Consortium OGC 13Washington State Geographic Information Council; NYS GIS

Clearinghouse, GISMO, etc.

State or Local 4

Association of Geographic Information Libraries in Europe AGILE 3United Nations Global Geospatial Information Management UNGGIM 2

Open-source collaboration for finding and sharing geospatial

data

GeoBlackLight 1

Open Source Geospatial Foundation GeoForAll 1North American Cartographic Information Society NACIS 1Open GeoPortal OGP 1Urban and Regional Information Systems Association URISA 1

None 47

Percent of Centers Identifying These as their Biggest Challenge (with or without geography department)

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

Lack offinancialstability

Lack of space,equipment or

otherresources

Lack ofinstitutionalrecognition

Lack ofprofessionaldevelopmentfor adopting

newtechnologies

Lack of userawareness

Lack of facultysupport

Other

With Geography Departmentwithout Geography Department

Percent of Centers Identifying These as their Biggest Challenge (public vs private university)

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

Lack offinancialstability

Lack ofspace,

equipmentor other

resources

Lack ofinstitutionalrecognition

Lack ofprofessionaldevelopmentfor adopting

newtechnologies

Lack of userawareness

Lack offacultysupport

Other

Public UniversityPrivate University

Other Major Challenges

• Inadequate staff skillset:• Hiring and staff retention• Current staff skillset does not match current responsibilities/opportunities• Lack of professional educators• Can’t keep up with power users’ demands• Majority of employees are "off-campus"; nation (and world) wide

• Lack of time or capacity to:• Build the center's awareness and capabilities• Build a proper GIS infrastructure for creative works• Transition from traditional stats/admin data to big data• Manage scale and support dispersed geospatial research

Percent of Centers Identifying These as Their Most Promising Direction for Growth (with or without geography department)

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%

sponsoredresearch

supportservices

(internal tothe

university)

product(tools andsystems)

development

consultingservices(externalcontract)

onlineteaching

Other


Percent of Centers Identifying These as Their Most Promising Direction for Growth (public vs private university)

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%

sponsoredresearch

supportservices

(internal tothe

university)

product(tools andsystems)

development

consultingservices(externalcontract)

onlineteaching

Other

Public UnivesityPrivate University

Other Major Opportunities

• Data development:• Diversification outside of GIS in data management and visualization• Creating and providing access to data and maps for open access• Providing access to historical geographic data• Developing data-related instruction and services in library

• Course development:• Spatial Sciences Initiative and Degree Granting Program• Delivering spatial analysis courses to students across the curriculum• More students

A glance of the landscape

• The overwhelming majority were straddling research and service in the same center. • Most centers were established since 1980, accompanying the growth

of GIS as an applied science and technology. • A center’s age alone is not a good indicator for its budget size (proxy

for its success). • Centers with a large budget ($5 million/year or more) were all older

than 20 years of age, in public universities with a geography department. • There was no significant difference between centers in public and

private universities (when separating out the factor of geography department).

A glance of the landscape (cont.)

• In this survey, about 10% of public universities did not have a geography department, while two-thirds of private universities did not. • Among universities without a geography department, there was no

clear consensus as to where a GIS center should belong, and how it should be funded. Every university seemed to be exploring its own way.• These centers would do more service and training, less sponsored research.• They have relatively more stable funding, but a harder time keeping up with

new technology.

Limitations of the survey

• It did not include any center that was formed earlier and subsequently discontinued before 2018, no conclusion can be made on the success rate of centers formed at any particular era.• Data is skewed heavily towards universities in the USA.• Countries and regions without access to Google (such as mainland China)

could not participate in this survey.• Responders may have limited knowledge or some misunderstanding on the

questions (such as how to count number of staff, how to estimate annual budget).• Challenges and opportunities were limited to the “biggest one”, not

allowing a ranked list of multiple entries.

Future perspectives

• Longitudinal data is needed to monitor centers’ success over time.• In-depth discussion is needed to understand the complex factors

affecting a center’s success.• The relationship between existing GIS centers and new initiatives

(such as Data Science centers) is worth monitoring. • There may not be a standard model for GIS centers in universities, but

there is a great potential for these centers to share experiences and learn from each other.

Understanding the Ecosystem of Geospatial Research and Service

in UniversitiesWeihe Wendy Guan and Elizabeth Hess

Center for Geographic AnalysisInstitute for Quantitative Social Science

Harvard [email protected]://gis.harvard.edu/
mailto:[email protected]://gis.harvard.edu/

understanding the ecosystem of geospatial research and ...understanding the ecosystem of geospatial...

Documents