BibTeX
@MISC{_methodologicalissues,
author = {},
title = {METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES},
year = {}
}
Share
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
OpenURL
Abstract
There are a number of sources of friction within the geomorphological community which the discipline can ill afford given the small number of practitioners. Perhaps foremost among these is methodology and/or technique. In an era of rapidly burgeoning techni-ques, there is a large and increasing burden on the research geomorphologist to master new methods of inquiry and analysis. Many of these methods are quite sophisticated, requiring a considerable investment of time and effort to develop the requisite level of expertise for conducting meaningful scientific research. The net result is that specialists proliferate, generalists are disparaged, and professional exchange within the discipline withers. The personal investment in mastering individual research techniques is now so substantial that loyalty to them is necessarily great and the tendency to view other tech-niques as flawed appealing. It is, perhaps, worth noting the parallel between this situation and the original thrust of the multiple working hypothesis concept with respect to ruling hypotheses (e.g. Chamberlin 1897). Another important source of both confusion and conflict within geomorphology is the scale of interest. Scale, both spatial and temporal, pervades geomorphology and chal-lenges
Keyphrases
methodological issue discipline withers personal investment requisite level multiple working hypothesis concept new method meaningful scientific research individual research technique important source geomorphological community pervades geomorphology original thrust considerable investment net result research geomorphologist small number professional exchange ruling hypothesis
