Quantifying Gendered Participation in Openstreetmap: Responding to Theories of Female (Under) Representation in Crowdsourced Mapping
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
GeoJournal https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-019-10035-z (0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().,-volV) Quantifying gendered participation in OpenStreetMap: responding to theories of female (under) representation in crowdsourced mapping Z. Gardner . P. Mooney . S. De Sabbata . L. Dowthwaite Ó The Author(s) 2019 Abstract This paper presents the results of an gender of 293 OSM users. Statistics relating to users’ exploratory quantitative analysis of gendered contri- editing and tagging behaviours openly accessible via butions to the online mapping project OpenStreetMap the ‘how did you contribute to OSM’ wiki page were (OSM), in which previous research has identified a subsequently analysed. The results reveal that vol- strong male participation bias. On these grounds, umes of overall activity as well editing and tagging theories of representation in volunteered geographic actions in OSM remain significantly dominated by information (VGI) have argued that this kind of men. They also indicate subtle but impactful differ- crowdsourced data fails to embody the geospatial ences in men’s and women’s preferences for modify- interests of the wider community. The observed ing and creating data, as well as the tagging categories effects of the bias however, remain conspicuously to which they contribute. Discourses of gender and absent from discourses of VGI and gender, which ICT, gender relations in online VGI environments and proceed with little sense of impact. This study competing motivational factors are implicated in these addresses this void by analysing OSM contributions observations. As well as updating estimates of the by gender and thus identifies differences in men’s and gender participation bias in OSM, this paper aims to women’s mapping practices. An online survey inform and stimulate subsequent discourses of gender uniquely captured the OSM IDs as well as the declared and representation towards a new rationale for widening participation in VGI. Z. Gardner (&) Keywords Volunteered geographic information Á Nottingham Geospatial Institute, University of Crowdsourced mapping: gender biases Á Nottingham, Nottingham, UK OpenStreetMap Feminist GIS Critical GIS e-mail: [email protected] Á Á P. Mooney Department of Computer Science, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland Introduction S. De Sabbata School of Geography, Geology and the Environment, Our engagement with maps has changed. Nowadays, if University of Leicester, Leicester, UK you order a taxi, a pizza, or use an app to navigate your way through an unknown urban district, the data that L. Dowthwaite Horizon Digital Economy Research Institute, University these location based services use to provide you with of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK 123 GeoJournal that service will not be that collected by a qualified knowledge through the creation of user-generated surveyor tasked by a government appointed agency, content (UGC), or ‘crowdsourcing’ (Howe 2006). armed with the knowledge, skills and equipment to VGI encompasses a range of mapping communi- accurately locate and measure topographical features. ties, data formats and knowledge types (Bittner 2017). Since the creation of Web 2.0 and the digital However, it is the active contribution of geospatial revolution in mobile computing, modern cartographic data to online mapping projects which constitutes the practices have changed. It is now more likely that this focus of this work. The most successful (although data originates from an online volunteered mapping conspicuously non-visible) example of this form of platform, populated with ‘crowdsourced’ geospatial VGI, with over 4 million registered users,1 is the data. Despite the increasing influence of professional online mapping project OpenStreetMap (OSM). editors tasked by large corporations such as Apple and Founded in 2004 with the mission of creating ‘‘a free, Microsoft to maintain the OSM database (Anderson editable map of the world’’ (Mooney and Minghini et al. 2019; Brabham 2012), this data will likely have 2016), the open source platform follows the peer been derived from a remotely sensed satellite image, production model that created Wikipedia (Haklay and aerial photograph or GPS trace synthesized into Weber 2008) whereby non-experts contribute geospa- cartographic data by an amateur mapper sitting at a tial data by and for the use of other ‘produsers’ desk in their home study. Empirical evidence also (Coleman et al. 2009). suggests that overwhelmingly, the creators of this The emergence of Neogeography in the mid-2000s data, including those corporate editors, are young men was initially hailed as a democratising geospatial with an interest in technology and the computer skills practice, seemingly promising access to both the and knowledge to match (Budhathoki and Haythorn- production and consumption of a new form of thwaite 2013; Schmidt and Klettner 2013). This geospatial information for anyone with a Wi-Fi skewed participation model has subsequently been connection. Neogeographers were resultantly ascribed problematised by feminist GIS scholars on the grounds a stake in the knowledge economy (McConchie 2015). that it fails to represent the geospatial interests of the Discourses around VGI, therefore became synony- wider community, specifically women. However, mous with concepts of democratisation (Haklay these theories remain untested. 2013). However, research over the past decade has suggested the limitations of this new geospatial Gender representation in VGI practice to include the experiential geospatial knowl- edge of the wider global community, as demographic Recent socio-technological developments in comput- biases in participation have been identified. As well as ing have fostered a transformation in the way geospa- by age and educational background, recent research tial data is both produced and used. Transformations in has demonstrated that user-ship in OSM is strongly digital technologies coupled with the wireless con- skewed by gender (Budhathoki and Haythornthwaite nectivity brought about by web 2.0, have effected an 2013; Coleman et al. 2009; Budhathoki et al. 2010; inherent interactivity (Flanagin and Metzger 2008) Haklay and Budhathoki 2010; Elwood et al. 2012; which lends itself to collaborative data models: Stephens 2013; Schmidt and Klettner 2013), 95–98% distributed individuals connecting and sharing infor- of all contributions to OSM being produced by men mation online. This practice has extended to the (Schmidt and Klettner 2013; Schmidt et al. 2013; collective production and consumption of geospatial Steinmann et al. 2013; Stephens 2013; Stephens and data volunteered by distributed, non-expert individu- Rondinone 2012), who are often young and techno- als and through which the ‘Geoweb’ (Haklay et al. logically enabled (Budhathoki and Haythornthwaite 2008), a virtual online assemblage of tools, data and 2013; Schmidt and Klettner 2013). Contributors to practices, has been brought into existence. This OSM thereby comprise a demographic cohort that is process and the resulting data, the two often conflated particularly skewed. as volunteered geographic information (VGI) (Good- child 2007), can be understood as an expression of the growing and expanding ‘wikification’ of GIS (Sui 1 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stats. Accessed 18/11/ 2008); as a subset of the broader co-production of 2018. 123 GeoJournal The identification of this participation bias has Based on these potential exclusions, there is an prompted leading critical and feminist GIS scholars to inherent assumption as well as an explicit claim within challenge the notion of democracy within VGI prac- critical discourses of VGI that data quality is compro- tices (Elwood 2008; Haklay 2013). Critical GIS mised on the grounds of biased representation in the thinkers have argued that maps (including those data. That is, that the interests of certain groups created by VGI) can never claim to be entirely (manifest as geospatial features) are under-represented impartial as objectivity would require a value-free and others over-represented as a reflection of the view from nowhere (Haraway 1991). Maps are structure of the demographic group that participate in ultimately embodied subjects that cannot be consid- the creation of the data. These imbalances in partic- ered separate from the people that created them ipation therefore contradict the nature of VGI as a tool (Haraway 1988, 1991; Pavlovskaya and Martin 2007). for democratising access to and the production of They consequently reflect the norms, assumptions, geospatial data so hotly anticipated at its outset. Its traditions and political biases of the map-makers credibility as a source of geospatial data and ulti- themselves (Harley 1989), in this case the contributors mately its scope is therefore constrained. to VGI. These critiques ultimately question the notion These discourses of VGI and representation there- of ‘the crowd’ in crowdsourced geospatial data fore expose the potential implications of the bias, models. which are problematic on these grounds. However, These critiques are perhaps rooted in the theoretical they do so with little empirical grounding with regard stance of the feminist critic Donna Haraway, who to the impact of demographic biases on the topo- states that, as it is inherently imbued with the intent graphical data that is and isn’t volunteered and and context of the subjects that produce it, knowledge therefore what is and isn’t visible. If, as critical GIS cannot be separated from its creators (Haraway 1991). discourses