References
- Bates, R. H. 1997. Area Studies and the Disciplines: A Useful Controversy Political Science and Politics 30 (2): 166–169.
- Cumings, B. 1998. Boundary Displacement: Area Studies and International Studies during and after the Cold War. In Universities and Empire: Money and Politics in the Social Sciences during the Cold War, edited by C. Simpson, 159–188. New York: New Press.
- Ford Foundation. 1999. Crossing Borders: Revitalizing Area Studies. New York: Ford Foundation.
- Globalization Project. 1997. Area Studies: Regional Worlds: A White Paper for the Ford Foundation. Chicago: University of Chicago, Center for International Studies.
- Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of the Social Sciences. 1996. Open the Social Sciences: Report of the Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of the Social Sciences. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
- Lewis, M. W., and K. E. Wigen. 1997. The Myth of Continents: A Critique of Metageography. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- May, G. A. 1987. A Past Recovered. Quezon City, Philippines: New Day.
- Parsons, J. J. 1996. Carl Sauer's Vision of an Institute for Latin American Studies. Geographical Review 86 (3): 377–384.
- Rafael, V. L. 1994. The Cultures of Area Studies in the United States. Social Text 12 (4): 91–111.
- Shea, C. 1997. Political Scientists Clash over the Value of Area Studies. Chronicle of Higher Education, 10 January, §A, 13.
- Volkman, T. A. 1998. Crossing Borders: The Case for Area Studies. Ford Foundation Report 29 (1): 28–29.
- Wallerstein, I. 1997. The Unintended Consequences of Cold War Area Studies. In The Cold War & the University: Toward an Intellectual History of the Postwar Years, edited by N. Chomsky, 195–231. New York: New Press.