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.
|Number of pages||11|
|Journal||Dialogues in Human Geography|
|Publication status||Published - Mar 2014|