Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 89(4), 1999, pp. 677–778©1999 by Association of American GeographersPublished by Blackwell Publishers, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, and 108 Cowley Road, Oxford, OX4 1JF, UK.The intellectual spaces separating thephysical and human counterparts ofGeography grow wider, in part, becausewe continue to march along subdisciplinaryavenues of specialization (e.g., Marcus et al.1992; Pickles and Watts 1992). Casual observa-tion reveals that substantive intradisciplinaryconversations are becoming conspicuously silentat the crossroads of Geography. Most humangeographers, for example, have engaged(although not necessarily embraced) seriousdebates regarding philosophical underpinnings,ontological/epistemological stances, and theimplications of social theory to human geogra-phy. In general, these debates express intenseconcern for the human condition. On the otherhand, most physical geographers appear, for themost part, to have avoided such debates andconcerns, expressing an implicit preference forthe rhetorical soil auger (Chorley 1978) overtheoretical and philosophical devices (although,see Rhoads and Thorn 1996). Have our sub-disciplinary dialects become so specialized thatconversations are no longer possible? It seems timely to contemplate commonaltiesand differences among the subdisciplines ofGeography. There is a general sense that thismay be an opportune, if not critical, juncture inour disciplinary evolution. In a recent reportentitled Rediscovering Geography: New Relevancefor Science and Society, the Rediscovering Geog-raphy Committee of the National ResearchCouncil (1997:161) noted that, geography has too few answers to the questionsbeing posed to it by society, although its potentialto answer those questions is considerable . . .. Onthe one hand, the demands of society are too largefor the current capabilities of the discipline; on theother hand, the demands from other scientific disci-plines are too small . . . this contradiction is a mat-ter of serious concern.The overarching imperative of this Forum isto engender conversations about interdiscipli-nary and holistic traditions, shared perspectives,and future prospects with a view toward a newlyrelevant and sustainable Geography. The“methodology” rubric is useful for our endeavorbecause it is both tangible and inclusive, andtherefore serves as an entry point to a conversa-tion that may lead us to deeper intellectualground. Most geographers feel comfortableabout their research and the methodologicalfoundations that enable these activities. Theycan easily describe what it is they do and howthey do it. Demarcation, however, is problem-atic. Geographers often have great difficultydescribing why their work is considered to beGeography. Indeed, in going about their busi-ness, geographers often borrow from the broadsuite of alternative methodologies available inother disciplines. In so doing, they rarely con-template explicitly the ramifications of makingmethodological choices, especially the implicitphilosophical underpinnings of those choices.Thus, a more practical rationale for such aForum is simply to take stock of availablemethodologies and to contemplate them in con-cert. A comprehensive survey of methodologiesin physical geography has not been conductedrecently despite almost daily advances in theway we are able to perceive, analyze, and under-stand the world around us. A Working DefinitionMethodology, for our purpose, is definedloosely as the vehicle by which persuasiveForumOn Methodology in Physical GeographyCurrent Status, Implications, and Future ProspectsBernard O. BauerDepartment of Geography, University of Southern Californiaarguments are constructed. This includes notonly the set of philosophies, concepts, theories,techniques, and observations that are the com-ponents of the vehicle, but, more important,the logic or reasoning that makes these com-ponents function together and links them toexpected outcomes or explanations.It seems reasonable to suggest that familiaritywith certain methodologies, but not others,implies a preference for certain types of researchquestions. No one would disagree that certainmethodologies are ideally suited for some prob-lems and not for others. What is the basis forthis understanding? How can such overt accep-tance be defended, and how can the eliminationof unknown alternatives be rationalized?Methodological choices, it would seem, haveconsequences for the development of substan-tive research agendas because an operationalframework is imposed that organizes how oneidentifies and selects “worthy” questions, howone obtains answers to those questions (includ-ing the nature of the data collected and thetechniques employed to collect and analyzethose data), and how one communicates andlegitimates those answers to others. Methodol-ogy, therefore, can be taken to mean a researchstrategy that comprises a broad spectrum ofinterrelated concepts including technique, the-ory, and philosophy—to wit, one’s academicpredisposition. The ChargeThe goals of the Forum are quite simply: (1)to produce a contemporary survey of method-ologies used in the subdisciplines of physicalgeography; (2) to reflect on the ramifications ofthese methodologies for geographical scholar-ship; and (3) to engender debates leadingtoward a more relevant and sustainable Geogra-phy. The first two goals are easily achieved,whereas the third will involve substantive andsustained efforts beyond the venue that thisForum provides. It is felt that the methodologyrubric provides a common and fertile ground towhich physical and human geographers alikecan relate and contribute.Contributors to this Forum were asked toorganize their thoughts around the followingprincipal questions:• What are the key methodologies withinthe substantive subdisciplines of physicalgeography?• What are the practical implications of makingcertain methodological choices for the pro-duction of knowledge (past, present, future)in the subdisciplines of physical geography? Inother words, how have our methodologiesinfluenced where we have been and where weare going?• To what extent can methodological discus-sion enable us to achieve both an integrativeand interdisciplinary perspective on physicalgeography and geography at large?• What are the methodological commonalitiesand differences among the subdisciplines ofphysical geography, how do they relate tohuman geography, and what are the implica-tions