Several commentaries on the original paper contributed valuably to one of its goals – promoting discussion about the contents of quantitative methods curricula for human geography undergraduate and postgraduate courses. But the only commentary relevant to the other goal, promoting fuller understanding of contemporary spatial science across the entire discipline, was disappointing, raising new critical issues – regarding, for example, the use of place and of data collected from individuals in spatial scientific studies. These are responded to in this reply.
Bibliographical noteThis paper is an extended reply to critics and comments on our original paper that had to be shortened due to journal space requirements.
The original paper is Ron Johnston, Richard Harris, Kelvyn Jones, David Manley, Clive E Sabel, and Wenfei Winnie Wang (2014) Mutual misunderstanding and avoidance, misrepresentations and disciplinary politics: spatial science and quantitative analysis in (United Kingdom) geographical curricula Dialogues in Human Geography 2014; 4:3-25 doi:10.1177/2043820614525706 see: http://dhg.sagepub.com/content/4/1/3.abstract.html?etoc
The reply as published in its shortened form is: Ron Johnston, Richard Harris, Kelvyn Jones, David Manley, Clive E Sabel, and Wenfei Winnie Wang (2014) One step forward but two steps back to the proper appreciation of spatial science Dialogues in Human Geography 2014; 4:59-69 doi:10.1177/2043820614526818 See http://dhg.sagepub.com/content/4/1/59.abstract.html?etoc
The full debate is to be found at Dialogues in Human Geography, March 2014; Vol. 4, No. 1 http://dhg.sagepub.com/content/4/1?etoc
- spatial science
- quantitative human geography