Geomorphology

Abstract

Geomorphology is the science that studies landforms and landforming processes. Topics of research in geomorphology during the 1990s represent the diversity of the discipline, as practiced by both academics and nonacademic applied geographers in government and private positions. Discussions on the role and importance of scientific theory and social relevance in geomorphology have become increasingly common, although agreement has not been forthcoming. Issues of scale, both spatial and temporal, appear at the forefront of many current papers in the discipline, but little consensus has been reached as to what constitutes the appropriate scale for studies in geomorphology. The use of a broad diversity of research tools also characterizes American geomorphology, including fieldwork, computer and/or laboratory modeling, surface exposure dating, historical archival work, remote sensing, global positioning systems, and geographic information systems. Problems arise, however, when attempting to integrate the results of fine-scale fieldwork with coarser-scaled simulation models. The 1990s saw a renewed debate in the role of scientific theory in geomorphology. Prominent in that debate were issues of temporal and spatial scale. Significant discussions, culminating in the 2000 Binghamton Symposium on the integration of computer modeling and fieldwork in geomorphology, were also engendered by perceived clashes between the roles of fieldwork and the “new technology” in geomorphology. The 1990s have seen continuing interest in defining the role of geomorphology as a science. Most geomorphologists have accepted applied geomorphology (in the sense of Sherman 1989) as a logical extension of the environmental linkages of the science. The social relevancy of geomorphological research can be established without sacrificing the intellectual core of the discipline (Sherman 1994). However, questions continue as to what actually constitutes “the scientific nature of geomorphology”. Rhoads and Thorn (1993) raised the question of the role of theory in geomorphology in an essay that ultimately led to the 1996 Binghamton Symposium on the scientific nature of the discipline (Rhoads and Thorn 1996). Their goals in hosting the symposium were to “initiate a broad examination of contemporary perspectives on the scientific nature of geomorphology. This initial exploration of methodological and philosophical diversity within geomorphology is viewed as a necessary first step in the search for common ground among the diverse group of scientists who consider themselves geomorphologists” (ibid. p. x).