激進年代學者指1960年代成長，而今已為耆老的知識分子。1960年代適逢中國發生文化大革命，美國與歐洲同時爆發學潮，影響了一代學者的養成，其中不乏後來成為中國研究的專家，散布各地。本文選擇性的比較不同背景的激進年代學者，包括從捍衛中國共產主義革命到捍衛馬克思主義的美國學者馬思樂（Maurice Meisner：馬克思主義）、在文革前已蒞臨中國從戲曲研究轉為少數民族研究的澳洲學者馬克林（Colin Mackerras：戲曲與少數民族）、從借用中國反抗美國帝國主義到全面反對政治壓迫的美國學者范乃思（Peter Van Ness：外交與人權）、從熱衷毛澤東主義到發掘基層民族企業家能動性的德國學者王海（Thomas Heberer：少數民族與地方經濟）與從找尋邊緣位置到定位於世界主義的華裔學者李歐梵（Leo Lee：文學）。他們共同受到文化大革命的影響，但後來基於各自的社會遭遇與思想成長，開展出各具特色的中國研究。本文歸納發現他們研究中國的時間與地點影響到他們如何調整研究策略。

In this paper, the radical years refer to the late 1960s and the early 1970s. China scholars going through the radical years in the early stage of their career witnessed both the anti-war student movements in their society and the Cultural Revolution in China. This paper selects five China scholars of the radical years to compare their strategy of adjustment in the aftermath of the Cultural Revolution and into the year of reform and openness in China. They include Maurice Meisner who used to take on China as a site to develop Marxism, Colin Mackerras who has been able to remain detached in his macro-views of China, Peter Van Ness who felt betrayed by the Sino-US normalization and reform in China in his pursuit of a just world without imperialism, Thomas Heberer who fulfills his quest for local agency for change by pragmatic filed research that ends his Marxist idealism, and Leo Lee whose diasporic identity replaced participation in the radical years by extricating transcendental globalism from those narratives considered socially rotten. This paper argues that the place and the time they conducted the China studies affect their strategies of adjustment.