This review based article entails that in the history of geography, one of the most exciting philosophical and methodological debates is the dualism between regional and systematic geography. This problem of “universality” and “exceptionality” has caused the biggest methodological debate in the history of geography. It reflects in the dualism of systematic geography and regional geography. Systematic geographers emphasize the pursuit of general principles in geography, while regional schools argue that areas of unique research are at the heart of geography. An analysis of the historical roots and evolution of the controversy shows that although the representatives of the two schools, Hartshorne and Schaefer, at least formally oppose the emphasis on only one of the systems and regions and neglect the other. Their differences in interest, values-induced preferences, and geography of history make them be ultimately different in their regional geography and systematic geography. The “Schaefer-Hartshorne Debate” in the 1980s was the only aftermath of this dualism. Since then, the rise of the pluralism methodology has made this dualism debate gradually fade out of people’s horizons, but postmodern geography focuses on “critical regional research”, which is still essentially a variant of this debate in the new era. The lack of such controversy in our geography community may be due to the academic orientation of “pragmatism”. The academic environment, the academic evaluation system, and the theoretical construction of compromise. This is not conducive to Nepal's geography. It is independent of the world of science.
Academic Discourse on the Dualism between Regional Geography and Systematic Geography
