Understanding (un)certainty in human geographic quantitative spatial analysis – commentary to Tulumello

  • Ossi Kotavaara

Abstract

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.

Section
Reflections
Published
Apr 29, 2019
How to Cite
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