Methodological issues in applying Location Models to Rural areas

Location Models are usedfor planning the location of multiple service centers in order to serve a geographicallydistributed population. A cornerstone of such models is the measure of distancebetween the service center and a set of demand points, viz, the location of thepopulation (customers, pupils, patients and so on). Theoretical as well asempirical evidence support the current practice of using the Euclidian distancein metropolitan areas. In this paper, we argue and provide empirical evidencethat such a measure is misleading once the Location Models are applied to ruralareas with heterogeneous transport networks. This paper stems from the problemof finding an optimal allocation of a pre-specified number of hospitals in alarge Swedish region with a low population density. We conclude that the Euclidianand the network distances based on a homogenous network (equal travel costs inthe whole network) give approximately the same optimums. However networkdistances calculated from a heterogeneous network (different travel costs indifferent parts of the network) give widely different optimums when the numberof hospitals increases.  In terms ofaccessibility we find that the recent closure of hospitals and the in-optimallocation of the remaining ones has increased the average travel distance by 75%for the population. Finally, aggregation the population misplaces the hospitalsby on average 10 km.

The Compromised Researcher : Issues in Feminist Research Methodologies

This article centres on issues of vulnerability and being compromised in feminist research where the focus has frequently been on researching the same. Compromise, here used in its pejorative sense, may for instance occur in terms of one’s research topic, the methods one utilizes, or the participants chosen for a study. Drawing on a range of examples including the methodological work of Ann Oakley (1981, 2000) as well as three articles on researching men that appeared in the journal Signs in 2005, I argue that feminist researchers, possibly because they work in an identity-based discipline, may be diversely vulnerable when researching the same and/or researching the different, and can be compromised both by how they are treated by those whom they encounter in their research and by their own behaviour in that context. I suggest that these concerns are under-articulated in feminist research and conclude with a series of questions that need to be raised.