From GIS to Web Maps - Participatory Mapping: New Data, New Cartography - page 26

The absence of recognition of the “rituals” that surround
map communication echoes the criticisms voiced against
Shannon's model. The latter considered the transmission of
information from a purely statistical and formal angle
without taking into account either the terms of message
reception or the emission context [BOU 93, p.426]. By the
same token, considering the map as a neutral intermediary
for the transmission of a message denies the social and
collective nature of communication. Maps not only transmit
information but they also appeal to emotions, the collective
conscience, or even the herd instinct [BOU 91], as shown by
the use of maps for propaganda [MON 91].
As geographers reacted to these criticisms leveled at the
MCM two opposing trends emerged. The first advocated a
scientific use of maps, whereas the second proposed a critical
approach to maps. The scientific group retained the will to
consider maps as scientific objects while taking into account
the above-mentioned criticisms. The geographer Alan
MacEachren, an important figure in this movement, was
aware of the limitations of the MCM, including its lack of
consideration for the communication context. Nevertheless,
he emphasized its relevance for “addressing representational
uses of thematic maps or in evaluating the interpretability of
individual symbols or symbol types” [MAC 04, p.12].
Moreover, he claimed that this model facilitates a reduction
of the bias and information losses [MAC 04, p.5] within the
cartographic communication process. So MacEachren
developed a research program centered on the use of maps in
the context of scientific research where these were the means
to synchronically explore a phenomenon and test a research
hypothesis.
The second movement was initiated by John Harley who
shared this wish to go beyond the MCM while opposing the
scientific model of maps. At the end of the 1980s, he moved