Kotavaara, O. (2019). Understanding (un)certainty in human geographic quantitative spatial analysis – commentary to Tulumello. Fennia - International Journal of Geography, 197(1), 160-162. https://doi.org/10.11143/fennia.80216
Understanding (un)certainty in human geographic quantitative spatial analysis : commentary to Tulumello
1Geography research unit, University of Oulu, P.O. Box 3000, FI-90014, Oulu, Finland
|Online Access:||PDF Full Text (PDF, 0.1 MB)|
|Persistent link:|| http://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi-fe2019090326514
Geographical Society of Finland,
|Publish Date:|| 2019-09-03
This commentary reflects uncertainty in human geographic quantitative spatial analysis within the context of Simone Tulumello’s essay (in this issue). Epistemologically, positivism, logical empiricism and behaviourism must be understood as historical stages in the evolution of quantitative human geography, even though the analytical legacy is clear. A more recognisable quantitative methodological framework, related to post-millennial human geographic studies, seeks sufficient evidence, which supports or refutes a particular line of thought. In general, the consideration of uncertainty and error is deeply tied to the methodological knowledge in quantitative analysis. Regardless of methodology or discipline, however, the risks of reporting over-certainty or clear misconduct are essential ethical questions. Uncertainty is linked also to the limits of conceptualisation and information catchment, but robust information revealing otherwise-hidden patterns is often highly valuable.
Fennia. International journal of geography
|Pages:||160 - 162|
|Type of Publication:||
B1 Journal article
|Field of Science:||
519 Social and economic geography
© 2019 by the author. This open access article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.