UK cartography and the failing British Cartographic Society
Setting the scene
Cartography has and continues to change dramatically. Societies that represent rapidly changing disciplines or communities of practice must also keep pace. In my view the British Cartographic Society has not kept pace and in what follows I set out why I hold this view and what I believe is a way forward. In the interests of transparency I feel its best to do this openly. I have expressed many of these opinions and observations to key people so it should be no surprise to them in particular. Making these issues public seems the only way to prompt a serious debate about the UK cartographic community and the purpose, form and function of BCS in particular.
Ive become increasingly frustrated with the BCS because I see a failing society and one that is simply limping along. I am not alone in these thoughts but maybe spending a few years in the U.S. makes me a little less British and reserved about voicing these issues. A society that represents those invested in it should be capable of impartially listening to the views of its members. My thoughts stem from a passion for cartography, the people involved, the need for a thriving community of cartographers and map-makers and a relatively lengthy association with BCS.
I�m not alone in my thinking. Many people have privately voiced their deep concerns at how the society is shaping up and working, some expressing their view that it is going backwards and many encouraging me to speak out and convey a widely shared view of reality. Im not going to implicate individuals because they have their own reasons for speaking out or not. This is very much my view of the society but I know I am not alone. It is a very long read though. Its a dissertation. Its been gestating for a few months and Im indebted to the few people I have shown drafts to for their comments and wise words.
The crux of the matter
BCS is failing. Lets ask the hard questions that need asking and make the Society actually mean and offer something going forward for UK cartography....or reconsider the very purpose of the society and seek an alternative. I�d like to see profound change in what is offered; a society that makes me want to belong and which is the place I go to for my daily cartographic shot. I want to go beyond the scant reward of a re-branded society who think newly monogrammed pencils, pens and rulers will keep me interested. At the moment I see an error-strewn and content-less web site, a late Journal which is getting thinner, a conference that is costly and not particularly interesting and a rhetoric that says everything is rosy and dynamic. It really isn�t.
My fundamental pitch is that Im convinced BCS is on its last legs. We (as in the community of cartographers and map-makers) should look towards forming a new society. The best approach in my mind is one that merges BCS with the other cartography society - the Society of Cartographers. BCS and SoC need to get round the table, cast aside personality and work towards a solution for the betterment of cartography as a whole. Form a brand new society that brings everyone together and starts afresh with a blank piece of paper rather than everyone�s well-worn prejudices. Deal pragmatically with the contested issues. Cartography has changed so much that the question has to be asked why shouldnt the professional organisations that are clinging to some desire for relevance just disband, reform and go again? What about the Royal Society of Cartography? Weve got a geographer Prime Minister and a geographer future King. Maybe it needs a bold step to shake off the shackles of the current and move forward with something new and daring to which more might feel a sense of commitment, belonging, value and purpose.
Cartography is burgeoning. There are thousands of new people making maps, some good, some bad and some ugly but all with something to contribute and learn from. Make a society that reflects this and gives them a reason to want to belong. The North American Cartographic Information Society are managing to keep pace. They have faced many of the same sort of issues over the last decade but my word they are thriving. Fresh. Dynamic. And I mean that in a genuine sense rather than just words on a web site. Theyre on the front foot. BCS really should look more closely at their model and while not everything will necessarily translate there are so many great ideas that could be harnessed. Their annual conference is a fantastic opportunity and generates so many ideas and relationships. Currently, BCS and NACIS are the antithesis of each other and, frankly, I hate that when I go to a NACIS event I genuinely get excited and am challenged and when I go to BCS its really just to have a beer with some old friends. NACIS used to call itself a drinking club with a mapping problem. Thats an image they have rapidly shed. BCS has become a drinking club with a drinking problem because it spends its time drowning its sorrows in the bars of obscure country retreats. It no longer lives in the real world and is seriously struggling for identity. It exists to exist and until someone starts shaking things up it will continue to limp along with a whimper. Re-branding papers some wide cracks but thats all it does.
In short, BCS is failing because it is no longer relevant. What does it actually do? What does it really offer me as a Fellow? What does it reallyoffer to individual members or, conversely, how do they support what BCS does? What do corporate members really get from their support of BCS and what can a knowledge of corporate members do for the individual? What is really there to attract new people to the society? The answers are strikingly simple. At whatever level of membership you get The Cartographic Journal and Maplines (the magazine). Corporate members get multiple copies of publications. It�s questionable whether any other �benefit� is really a benefit at all - I mean a real benefit. A listing on a web site and a discount on Ordnance Survey products is a nice but marginal perk and they do not constitute a strong motivator for joining the BCS. Corporate members get very little, if any, real promotion of their products
Because in real terms members get so little, I see major issues and failings of the society. My concerns have been forming for over a decade, during a period of almost immeasurable change not only in cartography in terms of the technology in particular, but also more generally with developments in web technologies and new forms of communication and collaboration. If we take a single disruptive change like Google Maps just think about how far everything we do in cartography has been modified by that company in only the last 12 years. Then we look at BCS and assess how it has responded and adapted to reflect such massive change that directly impacts our discipline and practice and I for one see a society overtaken by reality.
I am hugely privileged in that my job means I get to travel the world to see and share the excitement and vigor which cartography is enjoying in many contexts. I see hardly any of that reflected in the work of BCS or when I return to the UK for the annual symposium. The society is treading water, relying on outmoded ideas and appearing to be rudderless. Ive spoken out about various BCS issues in the past in the hope of encouraging change but very little of real substance ever happens. There�s a stagnant sense of familiarity about what BCS does and it concerns me that will only lead to a slow demise as other mechanisms for sharing, networking and learning among the community of cartography overtakes.
I accept this is not just an issue for BCS because many societies are feeling the effects of the changing world. How many companies have cancelled or reduced their membership of societies in recent years? How many individuals of societies let their membership lapse? I do not have access to the BCS membership database but according to the financial report for the year ending June 2016, even with new members joining (130 new members in 2016) there�s also a large number who resign or fail to renew (88 in 2016). Up to this point, 2015/2016 saw a net gain in membership but why do so many leave? In fact, are these numbers even accurate since the minutes of the September 2016 Council meeting state that membership was down 14% from September 2015. It doesn�t add up and you have to question what reality is versus what published reports contain. Either way, without members a society is nothing. Without the ability to change and attract new members who may be new to mapmaking, but who are massively important in the wider community, a society becomes irrelevant. Yet most of the events that BCS associates itself with are simply to staff a booth to attract and recruit new members. To what? Without a real reason to become a member I can�t see anything other than a decline in membership over the coming years. Over 10% of the membership left in 2016 and more should be done to encourage people to stay and to give them realbenefits rather than simply trying to find ways of ensuring the turnover of members doesn�t result in too much net attrition year on year.
A proliferation of societies
Ive long held the opinion that BCS and SoC should merge and I pretty much led this piece with that clear statement of a sensible way ahead. There simply aren�t enough people involved in cartography to sustain two societies in their old image any more. In 2007, then Chief Executive of Ordnance Survey Vanessa Lawrence gave the Helen Wallis lecture at the Annual BCS Symposium in Chester. About a minute into her talk she stopped, looked around and asked the audience why there was a British Cartographic Society and also a Society of Cartographers. She urged the two societies to look at ways of coming together more often and mentioned that elephant in the room - merger, because there simply wasnt the capacity for two societies. Vanessa was, of course, right. There was much mumbling among stalwarts of both societies and despite occasional �discussions� one side invariably accuses the other of being intransigent. We all know why there remain two societies. They were borne out of very different places in the 1960s and they have survived, largely unchanged, and in the image of waves of key members ever since. I might even go so far as suggesting it�s become a badge of honour to remain apart during the last decade or so at least and personalities have perhaps become a hurdle too far to overcome the differences.
I sense, in some quarters at least, that a merger is not as improbable as it perhaps has been though there remains a deep-seated discomfort. While it has been really progressive and pleasing that in both 2015 and 2016 (and now 2017) the two societies have shared a conference it has been noticeably through gritted teeth for many. That�s provided a tangible discomfort at the events as styles have clearly clashed but I am encouraged that we�ve come together for three consecutive conferences which has at the very least avoided two lots of expense and time away from our day jobs. On a personal level I�ve thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity of seeing the two groups of people I wish to connect with in the same place at the same time.
The merged conference should be where we genuinely act as a group of like-minded people who share one passion, albeit in different forms. Maybe the fact that BCS seem to hold the cards in terms of the overall management of the conference has led to some of the problems. There�s no doubt SoC are seemingly rolled into a BCS event rather than it being a truly merged, joint event. Perhaps BCS could relax a little and be a little more genuine in supporting a joint event. SoC has many bright minds but the society is in peril as a separate entity because the pot of people willing to pay for membership and attendance at a separate event has dipped below the viable threshold. Shared conferences are good and should continue in my view but start with a blank piece of paper and make them genuinely shared - not simply trying to dovetail some SoC involvement into what remains a very BCS leaning event. Do away with the BCS/SoC branding of discrete elements and just host a mapping conference.
There are two main societies for cartography in the UK - BCS and also the Society of Cartographers (SoC). And thats before you add in various other niche societies like the Charles Close Society or the larger umbrella organisation the Association for Geographic Information. Without unique selling points and a large reservoir of potential members a proliferation of societies dilutes the membership of each. It�s certainly the case that at an individual level many people have paid to be members of multiple societies. At a corporate level, many organisations have simply felt obliged to be seen to be members because it�s just the done thing. This situation cannot continue unless each organization offers something markedly different. But they don�t, which is why we see the same people and the same organisations at multiple events. Interestingly, it seems people spend so much time and money attending national events that you rarely see anyone from the UK at international events and so the insular nature of UK cartography becomes self-organising.
To me, SoC is the more progressive, agile and modern of the two societies but it struggles with very low membership and that has implications for the amount of work and events they can stage. BCS is arguably the more secure of the two in terms of membership but falls back heavily on trying to appeal to corporate cartography - whatever that actually is any more! SoC tends to be more relaxed. BCS more formal. SoC tends to encourage more academic and practitioner focused discourse and presentations at its events. BCS has certainly lent more towards the business side of cartography more recently. Academics have become a rare breed at the BCS annual symposium partly because they need to focus their work elsewhere (where it counts) and partly because the relatively high cost of attending symposium precludes purposeful participation.
There�s always a lot of grumbling behind the scenes and between cohorts who align themselves more with one society over the other. Awards dinners and ceremonies have led to grumbling. "too formal", "too many awards". "too stuffy", alongside "were professional and not bunking up in student digs". "we dont do pub quizzes" etc. People enjoy cartography and the world of mapping yet it seems that when they come together both societies feel the need to complain about one another. It�s tedious, particularly for those who enjoy aspects of each society and who have been members of both for years.
For years, many have had to juggle the financial implications of attending multiple BCS and SoC events, either trying to justify 2 separate conferences that had much in common or, worse, trying to be in two places at once. And what about corporate members? It�s unreasonable to ask companies to sponsor different events and hard for them to justify doing so. It drains resources to go to both (and more) but leads to a perception of support for one over another if they make a choice. Asking people to give up time from their company jobs to attend multiple events with similar content is simply too demanding and leads to people and organisations to seriously question the relevance and worth of attending or supporting. And so, when societies do come together, it shouldnt be too difficult just to accept each others idiosyncrasies because the whole really is so much better than the sum of the parts. Maybe thats the problem - people are simply too entrenched in the style of the society they prefer and become tribal about their distaste for how the others prefer their society. But were all one cartography - surely were already in a small enough club to be able to develop a society that meets the needs of all of us?
BCS Council and composition
In the face of massive change in cartography, for BCS, there exists an unhealthy old school club mentality that largely stems from the structure it maintains and the (lack of) turnover of key people. You can call it a Council but in truth it�s better framed as a club that key members have shaped over many years. They seem to like it the way it is and change, or the suggestion of change, is not met favourably, if at all. Maybe it�s just become too easy to roll out the same formulae year on year. Members of Council are familiar with many of the same people having been involved for many years. Empires have been built and cliques formed. In some respects this is inevitable because you form close working relationships, get on with some people and perhaps not so well with others. But let�s not forget this is a volunteer organization and it�s not healthy that if you arent in the club you struggle to find a place in the club.
Why dont new people come to the fore more? Partly because Council has become the closed shop I�m speaking about. Its become an echo chamber and people can all too easily see that they dont belong or cannot have a genuine and meaningful purpose for getting involved. The rhetoric may be one of welcoming all to take part but the reality is that people are nominated and seconded and then elected by a very small, inward looking set of people. Its become incestuous and has been getting worse for several years. Of course, the counter argument is the society would fold without these key individuals and to an extent thats a valid observation. But I hear a lot from inside BCS about how so many simply dont have the time to do things for the society because the effort of overcoming the hurdles at Council level becomes too time-consuming in itself. It�s understandable given the number of competing events as well as heavy workloads people inevitably carry but it�s important that if people are going to step up they have proper support and a defined role. At the moment, people get elected and then can end up doing very little, or simply repeating what they already know from their small circle of people in the industry. Its not a good model for developing a society and bringing on board new people and new ideas to reflect the changes we see more generally. It also leads to those who do try their hardest to become disillusioned through a lack of others pulling their weight or renaging on agreements. In a small community everyone needs to contribute else it becomes a society with small initiatives that come and go rapidly as people�s energy rapidly depletes.
The lack of rotation on Council is a reflection of BCS not offering much more generally so new people don�t have any real reason to want to get involved. Discounts at Stanfords and for OS maps are the latest �benefits� but anyone can buy offerings from both places cheaper elsewhere so in real terms the benefits are worthless. The perception of what constitutes a benefit is irrelevant at the level of the individual. It does little to encourage membership and why would focusing energy on working on a Council that seeks these deals be seen as something worth giving up valuable time for? Many of Council�s other work is a huge time-sink as well because the work is largely done by a few core individuals. The same people are seen everywhere which becomes the image of the society. Take Restless Earth as an example of something useful that BCS does. It�s a good initiative in many respects but let�s be frank - it doesn�t support members, it won�t attract new members, it is expensive and money could be diverted elsewhere to make a bigger difference to members or to more people who might consider being members. This in turn could help to revitalize the society and bring new people and ideas to Council.
So some of the bodies on Council change a little but what new initiatives have come about in, say, the last 5 years? Ive been privy to the minutes of Council meetings for the best part of a decade or more and they are little more than repetitive talking shops. Its mostly about house-keeping and deciding on really rather petty stuff to support the function of Council itself. Theres so little real discussion about genuine ideas but instead, just the stuff that keeps the status quo ticking over. Action items are routinely held over as ongoing or written off as complete but theres no real evidence and no real need for an outcome anyway. Many people�s attendance at Council has been sparse though it could be argued that Council is probably too large anyway. Its also become very autocratic with much being decided at Presidential level through email with a few key people. Sometimes this ends up being tabled at Council as a fait accompli or decisions are simply implemented. It�s understandable because this can be a way of subverting the tedium of a Council meeting to get things done but if Council and the committee structure no longer supports the need for more agile thinking and action then change the structure. It just makes Council weak and a relic of a former structure that no longer meets the needs.
Even if a Council is retained it also needs to modernize. Spending money getting everyone to London four times a year for meetings seems profligate when its already a challenge keeping a relatively small society running. Technology supports very good conference calling these days. Think how much money BCS would save on travel and subsistence just by doing this twice a year instead of convening in London four times a year. Telephone and video conferencing is a fundamental part of modern communication. It�s how the world has modernized. Distance is no barrier to communication and the UK isn�t that big anyway and I would strongly argue that at least 90% of Council�s business could be done remotely. This would minimize the impact on individuals, notionally giving them back time that could be used more productively.
The expenses policy for BCS Council members is archaic and also needs modernizing. As a fee-paying Fellow I find it quite objectionable that part of my fees go towards supporting Council member�s hotels, travel, meals and wine. I do think officers of the Society should be entitled to some financial support but as part of a policy that works to benefit the society. BCS should not have to spend what it does on travel and subsistence. This is money that can be spent elsewhere and be of benefit to the society.
BCS events and activities
For a society to function properly, it needs to offer events and functions. It needs to give people a reason to belong. It needs online discussion forums and meetups. It needs to support genuine networking and collaborative opportunities. Take this last year for instance. Theres certainly been activity on the Restless Earth workshops, Restless Earth certainly gives good PR and the schools and children get great value but it�s really just become a vanity project. And is it really offering insight into the world of cartography? Even Restless Earth needs modernizing. Exploring paper maps on tables is great in many respects but the exercises should have been using web-based materials for at least the last 5 years. Why havent the paper maps been augmented with cutting edge web mapping? Its not because offers to re-shape the programme into a web-offering havent been forthcoming. They have. Theyre just met with scepticism and apathy and so the offers of help are not taken up and so progress is painfully slow. Cartographic education at whatever level has moved on tremendously in the last decade but it�s gone beyond what we might have once called �cartography�. GIS is absolutely vital and Restless Earth could so easily support analytics or web mapping. My own feeling is that too many of those who have supported Restless Earth are not sufficiently skilled in modern practice to deliver the required content. Yes, they give of their time and that is a credit to them as individuals, but showcasing a cartography of the past perpetuates the myth that cartography is an old art. These are children growing up in the age of the Internet of Things, X-box realism and so forth. Showing them a few paper maps just does not cut it anymore. I know many hark back to the �good old days� but that is not how to run a society equipped for the modern day. As a society, BCS needs to be at the fore with their events and the people that run them...not offering glimpses into the past. And why would schools want to become members? Whats on offer? Wheres the next level for these schools and children? While a lot of effort goes into the Restless Earth initiative perhaps its too much because it does not benefit the vast majority of members of the society. And why have I focused heavily on Restless Earth? Because there is precious little else.
The Fellows evenings and autumn lectures have often taken the form of a speaker and a reception over recent years. For understandable reasons (one of our members can secure the venue) use has been made of the RAF Club in Piccadilly but I�m afraid this doesn�t present the society in a way that resonates with many. Having to ensure you�re attired according to the rules of the club and submit your name beforehand is not welcoming. It�s another example of the perception of many that BCS represents a bygone era of cartography. Last year�s autumn lecture was held in mid-afternoon and that�s just not helpful for people to be able to attend. BCS is simply out of step with what it deems attractive to members or Fellows in this respect.
The Better Mapping series has become tired as well. In 2016 there were numerous cancellations to Better Mapping seminars. Its unsurprising given attendees were being charged to attend the day long sessions. Low uptake is inevitable. Ten years ago this model worked but these days people (anyone, not just members) can get far more tuition via the internet so shelling out to attend a course needs to have more than a few people (that many are likely never to have heard of) showing PowerPoints. Times have moved on and while we might privately agree that a day with experts is better than whatever you can scrape from the internet its an incredibly tough sell. People get their education from many other places these days. Even Universities and companies are giving away tuition as pump primers or simply to provide them with visibility. Look at the incredibly successful Penn State University MOOC on the Geospatial Revolution for instance � 70,000 people have taken that course for free. The payback is that dozens have enrolled for their fee-paying MSc course and so the cost of developing the MOOC yields very real benefits. And what of the Maptime initiative which has spread from the idea of a few friends to over 70 separate Chapters globally in 2016. Maptime could have been a BCS idea except it wasn�t. It was created by people searching for a place or �club� to meet, network and share ideas about mapping. They shunned mainstream societies because they didn�t offer anything and, instead, went out on their own to make something that inspired them. Companies are also building their own materials to support the wider community of cartography. Mapbox have all manner of tutorials. Individuals created content such as MapSchool, Adventures in Mapping and other great material. Among a range of outreach activities, at Esri we build MOOCs too and there�s cartography news on the horizon too. It could so easily have been a BCS initiative but it isn�t and tha
visit link download