Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer
  • Register
  • Login
  • Language
    • English
    • Deutsch
    • Język Polski
    • Español (España)
    • Italiano
    • Français (Canada)
    • Čeština
    • Français (France)
    • Hrvatski
    • Srpski
    • Українська
  • Menu
  • Home
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Announcements
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • Submissions
    • Editorial Team
    • Privacy Statement
    • Contact
  • Register
  • Login
  • Language:
  • English
  • Deutsch
  • Język Polski
  • Español (España)
  • Italiano
  • Français (Canada)
  • Čeština
  • Français (France)
  • Hrvatski
  • Srpski
  • Українська

Lodz Ethnographic Studies

Structured methods of data production and their visualization using GIS: semantic domains in ethnographic research of landscapes
  • Home
  • /
  • Structured methods of data production and their visualization using GIS: semantic domains in ethnographic research of landscapes
  1. Home /
  2. Archives /
  3. No. 60 (2021): Mapa /
  4. Dissertations

Structured methods of data production and their visualization using GIS: semantic domains in ethnographic research of landscapes

Authors

  • Gabriela Fatková University of West Bohemia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7716-5909
  • Tereza Šlehoferová University of West Bohemia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1236-3859

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12775/LSE.2021.60.04

Keywords

landscape, structured methods of data production, GIS (geographic information system), ethnographic research

Abstract

In this article, we present how, using the example of research studies connected with the perception of a landscape, some structured methods of data production used primarily in cognitive anthropology can be applied along with the possibilities of data analysis visualization using geographic information systems. We show the process of working with data gained by qualitative techniques and transferred, using semantic domain analysis, to the GIS interface, and outline the room for interpretation opened up by such a multilevel approach using various tools. Although we subjected the described procedures to pilot verification in our own research, the connection of the presented methodological approaches is still open to scientific discussion and, above all, to further experimentation.

References

Aldenderfer, M., Maschner, H.D.G. (1996). Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information Systems. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Analytic Technologies. Social Network Analysis Software – Cultural Domain Analysis Software: http://www.analytictech.com/anthropac/anthropac.htm.

Balée, W., Nolan, J.M. (2019). Freelisting as a Tool for Assessing Cognitive Realities of Landscape Transformation. In: Ch. Isendahl, D. Stump (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Historical Ecology and Applied Archaeology (p. 366). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Becková, A. (2015). Kam to patří? Odpad perspektivou kognitivní antropologie. Master thesis. University of West Bohemia. Obtained from: https://otik.uk.zcu.cz/bitstream/11025/19228/1/ DP_Beckova_2014.pdf.

Bernard, R.H (2006). Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.

Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Bieling, C., Plieninger, T., Pirker, H., Vogl, C.R. (2014). Linkages Between Landscapes and Human Well-Being: An Empirical Exploration with Short Interviews. Ecological Economics, 105, 19–30.

Borgatti, S.P. (1994). Cultural Domain Analysis. Journal of Quantitative Anthropology, 4(4), 261–278. Borgatti, S.P. (2015). Software Review: FLAME (Version 1.1). Field Methods, 2(2), 199–205.

Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G.(2000). Models of Core/Periphery Structures. Social networks, 21(4), 375–395.

Brennan-Horley, C., Luckman, S., Gibson, C., Willoughby-Smith, J. (2010). GIS, Ethnography, and Cultural Research: Putting Maps Back into Ethnographic Mapping. The Information Society, 26, 92–103.

Brewer, D.D.(2002). Supplementary Interviewing Techniques to Maximize Output in Free Listing Tasks. Field Methods 14, 108–118.

Carr, N. (2010). The Shallows: How the Internet Is Changing the Way we Think, Read and Remember. Atlantic Books Ltd.

Ceccato, V., Haining, R. (2004). Crime in Border Regions: The Scandinavian case of Öresund, 1998–2001.

Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 94(4), 807–826.

Chapin, M., Lamb, Z., Threlkeld, B. (2005). Mapping Indigenous Lands. Annual Review of Anthropology, 34, 619–638.

D’Andrade, R.G. (1995). The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. Cambridge University Press.

Fagerholm, N., Martín-López, B., Torralba, M., Oteros-Rozas, E., Lechner, A.M., Bieling, C., Plieninger, T. (2020). Perceived Contributions of Multifunctional Landscapes to Human Well-Being: Evidence from 13 European sites. People and Nature, 2(1), 217–234.

Fatková, G. (2015) Data v antropologii I.: Strukturované metody vytváření dat. In: : P. Krištuf, T. Zíková et al. (eds.), Výzkum krajiny: vybrané antropologické a archeologické metody (pp. 30–38). Pilsen: Západočeská univerzita v Plzni.

Fatková, G., Zíková, T. (2013). Tenkrát na “čáře”: lidé, věci a čas vepsaní do pohraniční krajiny: případ zápa- dočeské obce Lesná. In: J. Stočes, E. Mušková (eds.), Tenkrát na západě (Čech). Kapitoly z dějin kultury a každodennosti Plzně a Plzeňského kraje (pp. 225–238). Pilsen: Západočeská univerzita v Plzni.

Fatková, G., Zíková, T. (2014). Lokální identita a paměť krajiny: významné krajinné komponenty v per- spektivě aktérů. Národopisná revue, 3, 116–129.

Gravlee, C.C. (1998). The Uses and Limitations of Free Listing in Ethnographic Research. Research Methods in Cognitive Anthropology. Gainesville: Dept. of Anthropology, University of Florida. Obtained from: http://gravlee.org/ang6930/freelists.htm.

Gravlee, C.C. (2005). Ethnic Classification in Southeastern Puerto Rico: The Cultural Model of “Color”. Social Forces, 83(3), 949–970.

Keddem, S., Barg, F.K., Glanz, K., Jackson, T., Green, S., George, M.(2015). Mapping the Urban Asthma Experience: Using Qualitative GIS to Understand Contextual Factors Affecting Asthma Control. Social science & medicine, 140, 9–17.

Komossa, F., Wartmann, F.M., Kienast, F., Verburg, P.H. (2020). Comparing Outdoor Recreation Preferences in Peri-Urban Landscapes Using Different Data Gathering Methods. Landscape and Urban Planning, 199, 1–10.

Lakoff, G. (1990). Ženy, oheň a nebezpečné věci: co kategorie vypovídají o naší mysli. Prague: Triáda.

Matthews, S.A., Detwiler, J.E., Burton, L.M. (2006). Geo-ethnography: Coupling Geographic Information Analysis Techniques with Ethnographic Methods. Urban Research, Cartographica, 40(4), 75–90.

Quinlan, M. (2005). Considerations for Collecting Freelists in the Field: Examples from Ethobotany. Field Methods, 17(3), 219–234.

Sorts, P. (2017). An Introduction to Cultural Domain Analysis in Food Research. Food Culture: Anthropology, Linguistics and Food Studies, 2, 159.

Stara, K., Tsiakiris, R., Wong, J.L. (2015). Valuing Trees in a Changing Cultural Landscape: a Case Study from Northwestern Greece. Human Ecology, 43(1), 153–167.

Šlehoferová, T. (2015) Antropologická data v prostředí Anthropac a GIS. In: P. Krištuf, T. Zíková et al. (eds.), Výzkum krajiny: vybrané antropologické a archeologické metody (pp. 103–112). Pilsen: Západočeská univerzita v Plzni.

Toušek, L. (2012). Vybrané aspekty metodologie aplikované antropologie, In: T. Hirt (ed.), Vybrané kapitoly z aplikované sociální antropologie (pp. 25–106). Pilsen: Západočeská univerzita v Plzni.

Wartmann, F.M., Egorova, E., Derungs, C., Mark, D.M., Purves, R.S. (2015). More Than a List: What Outdoor Free Listings of Landscape Categories Reveal About Commonsense Geographic Concepts and Memory Search Strategies. In: International Conference on Spatial Information Theory (pp. 224–243). Springer.

Weller, S.C. (2007). Cultural Consensus Theory: Applications and Frequently Asked Questions. Field methods, 19(4), 339–368.

Willigen, J. van. (2002). Applied Anthropology: An Introduction (Third Edition). Connecticut, London: Bergin & Garvey.

Lodz Ethnographic Studies

Downloads

  • PDF

Published

2021-11-07

How to Cite

1.
FATKOVÁ, Gabriela and ŠLEHOFEROVÁ, Tereza. Structured methods of data production and their visualization using GIS: semantic domains in ethnographic research of landscapes. Lodz Ethnographic Studies. Online. 7 November 2021. No. 60, pp. 53-75. [Accessed 3 July 2025]. DOI 10.12775/LSE.2021.60.04.
  • ISO 690
  • ACM
  • ACS
  • APA
  • ABNT
  • Chicago
  • Harvard
  • IEEE
  • MLA
  • Turabian
  • Vancouver
Download Citation
  • Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
  • BibTeX

Issue

No. 60 (2021): Mapa

Section

Dissertations

License

Copyright (c) 2021 Lodz Ethnographic Studies

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

  1. The authors give the publisher (Polish Ethnological Society) non-exclusive license to use the work in the following fields:
    • recording of a Work / subject of a related copyright;
    • reproduction (multiplication) Work / subject of a related copyright in print and digital technique (ebook, audiobook);
    • marketing of units of reproduced Work / subject of a related copyright;
    • introduction of Work / object of related copyright to computer memory;
    • dissemination of the work in an electronic version in the formula of open access under the Creative Commons license (CC BY - ND 4.0).
  2. The authors give the publisher the license free of charge.
  3. The use of the work by publisher in the above mentioned aspects is not limited in time, quantitatively nor territorially.

Stats

Number of views and downloads: 448
Number of citations: 0

Search

Search

Browse

  • Browse Author Index
  • Issue archive

User

User

Current Issue

  • Atom logo
  • RSS2 logo
  • RSS1 logo

Newsletter

Subscribe Unsubscribe

Language

  • English
  • Deutsch
  • Język Polski
  • Español (España)
  • Italiano
  • Français (Canada)
  • Čeština
  • Français (France)
  • Hrvatski
  • Srpski
  • Українська

Tags

Search using one of provided tags:

landscape, structured methods of data production, GIS (geographic information system), ethnographic research
Up

Akademicka Platforma Czasopism

Najlepsze czasopisma naukowe i akademickie w jednym miejscu

apcz.umk.pl

Partners

  • Akademia Ignatianum w Krakowie
  • Akademickie Towarzystwo Andragogiczne
  • Fundacja Copernicus na rzecz Rozwoju Badań Naukowych
  • Instytut Historii im. Tadeusza Manteuffla Polskiej Akademii Nauk
  • Instytut Kultur Śródziemnomorskich i Orientalnych PAN
  • Instytut Tomistyczny
  • Karmelitański Instytut Duchowości w Krakowie
  • Ministerstwo Kultury i Dziedzictwa Narodowego
  • Państwowa Akademia Nauk Stosowanych w Krośnie
  • Państwowa Akademia Nauk Stosowanych we Włocławku
  • Państwowa Wyższa Szkoła Zawodowa im. Stanisława Pigonia w Krośnie
  • Polska Fundacja Przemysłu Kosmicznego
  • Polskie Towarzystwo Ekonomiczne
  • Polskie Towarzystwo Ludoznawcze
  • Towarzystwo Miłośników Torunia
  • Towarzystwo Naukowe w Toruniu
  • Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
  • Uniwersytet Komisji Edukacji Narodowej w Krakowie
  • Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika
  • Uniwersytet w Białymstoku
  • Uniwersytet Warszawski
  • Wojewódzka Biblioteka Publiczna - Książnica Kopernikańska
  • Wyższe Seminarium Duchowne w Pelplinie / Wydawnictwo Diecezjalne „Bernardinum" w Pelplinie

© 2021- Nicolaus Copernicus University Accessibility statement Shop