Economic geography has reached an impasse in its development evidenced by the growing number of commentaries from established scholars regarding disciplinary direction. This critical juncture is not so much about the viability of the field, which in many ways is thriving, but rather about how economic geographers understand, interpret, and articulate the core objectives and constitution of the discipline. Despite the remarkable diversity of the field today, there remains a fundamental tension between a disciplinary project that asserts the primacy of a particular approach or practice of scholarship and one that genuinely welcomes different perspectives. Instead of an engaged pluralism, economic geography has largely descended into a fragmented pluralism for reasons very much internal to the history of the field. In this article, we argue for an engaged pluralism that is achieved not by focusing around one concept or theoretical tradition (however broadly defined) but rather by acknowledging the polyvalency of the field and addressing specific topical research agendas that might benefit from more conversation between economic geographers of different methodological and theoretical orientations. Presenting urban labor markets as a case in point for the potential merits of more coordinated topical research agendas, we offer a vision of how economic geography can be better calibrated for cross-cutting debates that generate more vibrant, relevant, and productive scholarly exchanges.