Over the years, various observers of health geography have sought to ‘divide’ the sub-discipline mainly along theoretical lines or to argue for a broadening of its theoretical base. Paralleling the growing theoretical pluralism within health geography has been a growing methodological pluralism. As in other parts of human geography, health geographers have embraced historical research, quantitative and qualitative methods, and computer mapping and geographic information science (GIS). Analysing recent contributions by health geographers, the question I seek to answer is whether the growing theoretical and methodological pluralism has paradoxically led to increasing divisions in the topics of study based mainly, but not solely, on what methods are employed in the research. While there are topical overlaps (e.g. quantitative and qualitative studies of particular vulnerable groups), it is less obvious as to how research using one methodology is informing research using the other methodology.