When the term Spatial Citizenship was first introduced (Jekel and Gryl2010;
Gryl et al.2010), it was influenced by two major schools of theoretical tradition that can be rather closely linked together, Critical Cartography and Critical GIScience.
Both underline the function and power of maps (i.e., Harley1989; Wood 1993).
Transferring both into an educational setting informed by social geography and new cultural geography, the first argument therefore was:
Children make geographies
þGeographies need powerful visualizations þMaps are the most powerful visualizations
¼ Children make Maps
(Jekel2008).
The argument was close to a second strand of thought that developed through the reaction of GIScience to criticism mounted mainly by social science aware GIScientists (Pickles1995; Schuurman2000): They developed uses for Geographic Information Systems for participation (Elwood2006). While these systems were still heavily relying on expert knowledge, they made it a point to include lay knowledge in public decision making. The decision making, however was still largely oriented at formal spatial planning decisions and the spatial approach clearly linked to boundaries of administrative entities.
From these two entry points, the original model of competences to be acquired by students included three areas to be touched upon during secondary education (see Gryl and Jekel2012):
– A reduced set of technical competences regarding geoinformatics
– The ability to reflect on others spatial representations, as well as to reflect on one’s own geo-media use
– The ability to use spatial representations in communication and participation.
the constructedness of space allows for both the analysis of political processes as well as for the envisioning of alternative meanings of space (Jekel2007). Drawing on our example of the skiing area, the groups of snowboarder and skiers clearly carry rather different connotations of that space, and represent it accordingly. Space is a concept to order the world according to one’s interest. At the same time, the technological background of the tools used are clearly reliant on the absolute concepts of space. Education for Spatial Citizenship therefore has to include relevant concepts of space as used in everyday action as well as scientific and technological discourses. A minimum setup would include absolute, perceived and relational space.
Critical Cartography/Critical GIScience The acceptance of the social construc- tion of space as a basis to analyze human environment interaction also opens up to the debates on the functioning and power of spatial representations, i.e. maps and geographic information systems. Debates here have started with Brian Harley’s (1989) deconstruction of maps in a historical perspective pointing to the fact that maps do also act as a representation of social relations, and therefore, power and control. Later work in the GIS domain has also focused on the analytical prowess of GIS that was closely linked to the spatial approach. This critique is centered around the mechanistic spatial approach as well as the exclusion of the ordinary citizen from the expert systems (Pickles1995; Schuurman2000,2009; Harris and Har- rower2005). As pointed out by Schuurman (2009), Critical GIScience contributed to the development of a few research areas within GIScience as a reaction, includ- ing investigations on different ontologies, counter mapping, and Public Participa- tion GIS (PPGIS). However, Critical GIScience may also be translated to educational use at secondary level, as it informs reflexive practice regarding spatial representations (Gryl2009; Jekel2008). However, little research and school exam- ples have been provided so far looking into the now ubiquitous GI use by lay people.
Counter Mapping and Participatory GIS One of the main research areas resulting from early critiques of GIS was the development of public participation GIS, specifically for the area of spatial planning. Early examples were clearly influenced by the spatial approach again and did mainly allow local stakeholders to place different weights to specific factors (layers) that were present in a spatialized decision making process. Counter Mapping, on the other hand, tried to provide lay users to produce their own maps with the intent to further their interests, for example through the possibility to document land possession. Both approaches have been further developed through the geoweb in recent years and are now technically proficient to allow students at secondary school to contribute to maps under the collaborative mapping tag (see, for example, Vogler et al.2012).
Citizenship Education Traditionally, citizenship education should prepare stu- dents for ‘dutiful’ citizenship (Bennett et al. 2009), allowing them to function within a given set of societal rules. Accordingly, citizenship education was often seen as a tool for nation-building on both national and international (e.g., the
40 T. Jekel et al.
European Unions) scale. As mentioned above, a widened, fluid, and possibly rule changing concept of citizenship is employed here, including emancipatory aims and concepts of activism (Elwood and Mitchell2013).
4.2.1 Basic Competence Dimensions for Spatial Citizenship
The basic competence dimension for citizenship education need some distinction in (a) competences needed by students in secondary education, and (b) competences needed by teachers to help students acquire the basic competences. Here, we concentrate on competences students should acquire, while teacher training needs are dealt with in Sect.4.3of this chapter. The guiding question therefore is which competences are needed by the ordinary citizen to successfully participate in society and decision making. As denoted in Fig. 4.2, we consider three main areas that we detail below:
Technology and Methodology to Handle Geomedia Participating in the process of spatial communication requires technological competences, including the ability to actively handle geomedia of the period in question. As technologies develop, requirements vary, and generally, decrease. From the technological viewpoint, traditional map reading and drawing skills need to be revisited and adjusted: New technology allows for broadening of possibilities for the lay user, ranging from consumption to production of competitive geomedia in the framework given by the GI-tool. The spatial citizen, as opposed to spatial analysts and spatial information system managers, is considered to have five competences within the field of technology/ methodology (see also Strobl2008, p. 136):
– Consumption: map reading, orientation and navigation
– Analyzing: using existing functionality to answer simple questions and fulfill single-step analytical tasks, developing hypotheses from spatial representations.
Fig. 4.2 Basic dimensions of education for spatial citizenship (Adapted from Gryl and Jekel 2012)
4 Education for Spatial Citizenship 41
– Prosumption (Strobl2008): changing data selection and visualization within a certain degree of freedom and participating by labeling, marking and commenting
– Producing: contribute one’s own data and ideas
– Social networking: being able to use decision negotiation instruments on the web 2.0
Technical competences however, cannot be considered the final aim of an education for active Spatial Citizenship. They must be considered as preconditions for a reflected appropriation of space and active participation in society.
Reflection and Reflexivity Regarding Geomedia This component refers to the
“consumption aspect” of handling geomedia. The classical consumption skills of map reading have to be extended by through deconstruction, conscious hypotheses production and envisioning space. It is therefore necessary to shift from decoding absolute spatial representations to reading them as the representations of the multi- plicity of intentionally constructed relational spaces (Kitchin and Dodge2007). This process can be termed reflection and reflexivity of spatial representations. Both require willingness for uncertainty and an attitude for reflectiveness as well.
– Reflection: knowing about the naturalization of spaces in geomedia and apply this knowledge to a certain spatial representations, comparing information with pre-knowledge and other sources, identifying hidden and missing information, thinking of alternative attachment of meanings and spatial scenarios.
– Reflexivity: knowing about own hypothesis generation with geomedia, reflecting own consumption processes, being aware of the own construction of spatial scenarios based on medium, preconditions, and own interest, developing alterna- tives, and deciding for acceptance of spatial scenarios or promoting alternatives.
Communication, Participation and Negotiation With Geomedia In addition to technological competences, Spatial Citizenship calls for competences for active communication and participation strategies.
– Expression: finding a way to convincingly communicate constructions of mean- ings and alternative, non-mainstream spatial scenarios, using GI.
– Communication: sharing ideas and meanings with the intention that communi- cation partners adopt them, either using institutionalized online and offline communication paths, or producing one’s own using the power of emerging communities, especially on the Web 2.0.
– Negotiation: engaging and discussing in an interactive, non-linear process, trying to reach compatible meanings in democratic negotiation acceptable for all participants using Web 2.0 technology as an option.
42 T. Jekel et al.
4.2.2 Discussion: Reception of the Spatial Citizenship Approach
Since its emergence, the Spatial Citizenship approach has already found significant reception. Besides the construction and field-testing of practical learning environ- ments (e.g. Jekel et al. forthcoming; Kanwischer and Gryl2012), several authors enhance and refine the theoretical foundations and seek for further fields of application.
Kanwischer et al. (2012; cf. Gryl, Schulze and Kanwischer 2013) supplement the initial concept with extracts of competences catalogues from different disciplines to produce a detailed spatial citizenship competence model and curriculum. With this, Spatial Citizenship is linked to the competence debate in secondary education on an international level.
Carlos and Gryl (2013) focus on another theoretical refinement of Spatial Citizenship by comparing it with the approach of Critical Thinking. Both Critical Thinking and the ancestor of Spatial Citizenship, Critical GIScience, share the term
‘critical’, and both approaches are close to concepts of citizenship (education). In contrast to Spatial Citizenship, Critical Thinking is an already influential approach, being received worldwide, and beyond the subject of geography. Despite some non-congruencies between both approaches, Spatial Citizenship can benefits from Spatial Thinking concepts such as rationality, moral, and creativity.
Elwood and Mitchell (2013) identify another significant aspect to enhance the Spatial Citizenship approach. Political action within Spatial Citizenship is initially described with the term‘participation’, which, however, pretends equality among the different stakeholders that is not existent in society. The authors argue, that even if lay users may produce competitive geomedia with simple mapping tools and communicate counter narrations, direct confrontation is seldom possible. Thus, spatial citizens will not be able to realize strategic practices – the practices of the powerful that construct spaces permanently – but will be able to gain profit from tactical practices (cf. De Certeau 1984). Geomedia does not directly support political action, but may first and foremost boost political formation, in terms of
“(1) the formation of political subjects, (2) the formation of interpretive frames that can mobilize these subjects for action, and (3) the formation of shared knowledge through collaborative cartographies” (Elwood and Mitchell2013, p. 280). There- fore, tactical practices, in other words, visual spatial tactics have to be understood as condition for Spatial Citizenship, as they “can foster political subject formation, collaborative, interactions that generate shared knowledge, and critical insights that mobilize these subjects for engagement” (Elwood and Mitchell2013, p. 288).
Kanwischer and Quennet (2012) open up a more application-oriented focus and stress the potential of Spatial Citizenship to play an important role in the ongoing process of the introduction of e-governance in developing countries in Africa. It may help to connect information and communication technologies to spatial deci- sion making and simultaneously support the citizens’maturity.
4 Education for Spatial Citizenship 43
Vogler et al. (2012) suggest the concept of Spatially Enabled Learning, extending the Spatial Citizenship’s focus on the spatial domain to further learning processes in several subjects beyond geography. The authors stress the argument that learning with additional spatial orientation patterns displayed by geo-visualization may lead to deeper cognitive elaboration (cf. Paivio1986). This approach does not only go beyond the approach of Learning to think Spatially by including the principles of Spatial Citizenship such as the social construction of spaces, it clearly turns this idea on its head by suggesting that geomedia might become a support system for learning in general (Vogler et al.2012).
All these receptions of the original concept suggest that Spatial Citizenship may be a very useful basic concept for education in the spatial and political sphere that needs further clarification and empirical work. A first approach has been done while providing relevant curricula and materials for teacher training.