Geographers and globalization: the future of regional geography Introduction

Introduction Peter Dicken (2004) lamented geographers' missing out on globalization and becoming more parochial in terms of research, and called for a revitalization of regional geography. Indeed, I often feel unsettled by the fact that, from time to time, geographers have to defend the position of geography, especially in recent response to the argument that globalization means the end of geography. Some of those influential pieces are coming from popular media, by popular journalists and columnists, most recently, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman (2005) in his bestseller, The World is Flat, which once again reinforces ``the end of geography thesis''. Given the fact that the globalization train is moving forward without any immediate stop sign, such a thesis, in varied forms, will be circulated and speculated about again and again in the future. It is also clear that the significance of geography is not really appreciated by some in the media, intentionally or unintentionally. I have been puzzled by why so few geographers are writing popular books discussing, or even defending, the implications of globalization on geography. This may have something to do with geography as a discipline itself. Why cannot we geographers play a more active role in the globalization debate? In this commentary I argue that such a position has a lot to do with the struggling academic status of regional geography, including the geography of China. I also discuss the roads that geographers, especially those working on China, may take to improve their academic status, which may have important implications for the survival and even revitalization of regional geography.