In investigating (dis)orderly spaces we have argued that while alcohol research has included geographical perspectives, studies have nonetheless tended to under theorize the ways in which space and space are key constituents of alcohol, drinking and drunkenness. For example, work undertaken by scholars in a variety of disciplines including the medical and health sciences, psychology, sociology, politics, criminology and cultural studies have considered issues relating to alcohol via ‘geographical’ issues such as spatial scale, national, regional and local identities, distinctions between public and private, urbanity and rurality, boundaries and transgressions, visibility and invisibility, centrality and marginality and so on. In these terms a large amount of rich, detailed and relevant geographical work has been undertaken by alcohol researchers relating to a diverse set of topics, social groups and spaces and places. However, this case study approach has meant that alcohol research have overwhelmingly failed to pursue connections, similarities, differences and mobilities between case studies and as such consideration of space and place has been undertaken via a de facto and/or fragmented agenda that has tended to depict drinking in an abstract way that while being based on particular people or places does not enable generalizations to be made. In these terms research which has had a geographical focus has rarely moved beyond specificities and has

thus failed to generate a convincing case to assert the importance of geography as a key feature of alcohol research.