As a professional and academic geographer in a Canadian university for the last fourteen years, I have become increasingly aware that there is a growing dichotomy between pure and applied research in physical geography. This breach has been discussed by numerous prominent figures in the field. Yet it is disquieting that many published statements amount to defences of the one or attacks on the other of these two aspects of the discipline. For example, Chorley has written: ‘Utilitarian approaches to geomorphology will either result in large‐scale work of which the intellectually‐sterile taxonomic mapping is the most depressing precursor, or in a piecemeal concentration on small‐scale realist systems. The construction of [realist] models in geomorphology may not be a secure base for geomorphological theory.’ To Hails, by contrast, ‘There seems little doubt that geomorphologists will be asked to resolve problems created by technological innovation and engineering design in the future … [Thus]the contribution of geomorphologists might be increased if the subject was taught in such a way that students were acquainted with the necessary techniques for scientific applied studies and the needs of the