This commentary responds to Rose-Redwood et al.’s (2018) article, ‘The Possibilities and Limits to Dialogue’, by reflecting on the possibilities of a culture of cosmopolitan dialogue. First, I focus on dialogue as part of knowledge production within academic communities, identifying the institutional challenges and power inequalities that fetter dialogues between Western academia and beyond. Next, I reflect upon the different ways in which the ‘relevance’ of human geography is understood in different contexts, partaking in an alternative meaning of dialogue, that is, as public engagement and social relevance.
EssonJNoxoloPBaxterR. (2017) The 2017 RGS-IBG chair’s theme: decolonising geographical knowledges, or reproducing coloniality?Area49(3): 384–388.
2.
FanJ (2016) How Chinese human geographers influence decision makers and society academic [sic] information. Journal of Geographical Sciences26(12): 1792–1794.
3.
LiuWDDunfordM (2016) Inclusive globalization: unpacking China’s belt and road initiative. Area Development and Policy1(3): 323–340.
4.
MasseyD (2001) Geography on the agenda. Progress in Human Geography25(1): 5–17.
5.
MurphyA (2006) Enhancing geography’s role in public debate. Annals of the Association of American Geographers96(1): 1–13.
6.
RobinsonJ (2002) Global and world cities: a view from off the map. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research2(3): 531–554.
7.
Rodríguez-PoseA (2004) On English as a vehicle to preserve geographical diversity. Progress in Human Geography28(1): 1–4.
8.
Rose-RedwoodRKitchinRRichardsL. (2018) The possibilities and limits to dialogue. Dialogues in Human Geography8(2): 109–123.
9.
WallersteinI (1997) Eurocentrism and its avatars: the dilemmas of social sciences. Sociological Bulletin46(1): 21–39.
10.
YeungH (2002) Deciphering citations. Environment and Planning A34(12): 2093–2102.
