A FOREWORD BY THE EDITOR
In this issue and the next, the Association takes the unprecedented step of presenting a monograph of book length. This appears to be warranted by the merit of the paper. It is, moreover, peculiarly appropriate because the work is a study in the methodology of geography, a phase of the science that has found repeated expression in this periodical from its inception. As is customary in learned societies, a goodly number of its presidents have presented before the Association their views of the theory and the technique of geography in addresses afterwards published in the
ANNALS. In addition there have been occasional contributions by members in unofficial capacity, including the Association's founder, W. M. Davis. Some of these are devoted exclusively to technical aspects of the topic. Others, more numerous, are concerned with methodology incidentally to presentation of matter on areas. The fitness of discussing theory and technique in the publication maintained by professional American geographers for the interchange of their views and the presentation of their researches, can hardly be questioned.The perennial issues of methodology have alternately lain dormant and put forth fresh shoots. The past few years have constituted a period of active thinking about these issues. This has been voiced in vigorous debate at every recent gathering of American geographers. Besides, no less than six papers taking cognizance of the issues have been published in the
ANNALS within two years, and others have appeared elsewhere, both in America and in European countries. To those debates and articles the monograph offered here is in a sense the capsheaf. This it becomes because it far transcends the scope of any of its predecessors.A word as to its origin is in order, to account for publication in the
ANNALS of a paper of such extraordinary length. A year ago the author submitted for publication a rather long paper on the nature of geography, but not longer than some which have appeared in earlier volumes of the ANNALS. Pursuant to suggestions made by the editor and other critical readers of that manuscript, the author undertook to make emendations. Meanwhile he had settled temporarily in Central Europe. The changes suggested, as well as others prompted by studies published by several students during the period of reworking, resulted in a complete revision, thanks in part to the atmosphere of the native heath of geographic methodology. Indeed, many of the gleanings from the printed word have been verified and amplified in discussions between the author and German authorities.The increase in length entailed by the enlargement in scope gave pause to the author, who repeatedly expressed his misgivings in letters to the editor. Convinced that the work needed doing, the editor encouraged its completion. When finally the revised manuscript was received it was accompanied by the following statement:
"Looking at the product that has grown out of what I started to do over a year ago, it seems to me that for anyone in my position to have planned to produce such a study, in which the work of so many colleagues is critically discussed, would have been presumptuous. To have sent such a thing, unasked, to the
"For me, therefore, it is important that the work was not planned from beforehand, but grew of itself out of a very much smaller idea. This does not mean that it is planless; it has been revamped many times to form an organized whole, but its nature developed from itself rather than from any intention on my part.
"Finally, it is only fair to remind the editor that the original suggestion that I write something on the general subject came from him (though this is not intended to make him responsible for the result)."
The editor, believing that the monograph is both timely and timeless, seizes this opportunity to claim for himself the degree of responsibility for its appearance which the author so generously accords him.