The Right to Rule by Thumb: A Comment on Epistemology in “A Route Map for Successful Applications of Geographically-Weighted Regression”

Comber et al. provide an important contribution to the future of quantitative geography and Geographical Analysis. The contribution is chiefly in their development of a “GWR Route Map,” a diagram showing the sequence of analytical steps that “successful” specification searches in local modeling tend to follow. Geographically weighted techniques have been rapidly expanding, both in terms of complexity, users, and disciplinary reach. With geographically weighted methods now in so many more analysts' hands, any new rule of thumb will have a major imprint. But, by what right does the thumb rule the analysts? That is, what “counts” as valid knowledge about local models in general? In the following comment, I argue that we probably should use theory, not route maps to decide specifications. But, if we are pressed to build route maps, we sorely need better epistemological foundations for them. I discuss a few previous examples of strongly grounded route maps and offer a few paths to these better grounds as well as two ways to the exit.     

Navigating the Methodological Landscape in Spatial Analysis: A Comment on “A Route Map for Successful Applications of Geographically-Weighted Regression”

The development of “route maps” for spatial analytical methods is a pursuit with important ramifications. Comber et al. propose a route map to guide applications of geographically weighted regression consisting of a three-step primary pathway and a series of secondary arterials. This comment first highlights some concerns about the underlying “map” (i.e., experimental setup and assumptions) and then with the proposed “route” (i.e., core decisions and evaluation criteria). It closes by suggesting a more general focus on identifying modeling issues with the highest impact and facilitating consensus-building, which could improve the future production of route maps for navigating the methodological landscape in spatial analysis.     

A Review of “Going Local: Presidential Leadership in the Post-Broadcast Age”

In 1974, Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives adopted major reforms in their committee assignment process. Drawing upon interviews with participants and personal observation, we identify the major differences and similarities in the new and old assignment mechanisms and in their environments. The formal and informal procedural changes, in turn, lead to a set of expectations about the role and significance of the characteristics of requesters and Committee on Committees (CC) members in postreform assignment decisions. These expectations are tested using previously unavailable CC ballot tallies for assignments in the 95th-97th Congresses. These data permit us to peer into the “black box” of the assignment process and to avoid questionable assumptions about who is nominated and the mechanism by which they are elected. Despite the presence of significant changes in the process, few differences in the factors shaping assignment decisions are found. Still, the openness of the new environment and the nominal control of the process by elected party leaders have helped eliminate rumors of manipulation and conspiracy that frequently surrounded Ways and Means deliberations.