What is Globalization

1) Globalization is the process of the increasing degree of integration that nations are experiencing as the result of changes to communication, transportation, and economic development paradigms (Investopedia, 2017). There are differing views, for example, whether the definition should include a merely passive understanding or should include the fact that these processes are to some extent driven by actors specifically seeking to increase the interdependence between nations.
2) It would be odd to contest the concept of globalization. There will be differing definitions, of course, but it would be difficult to contest the notion that globalization exists. If `contested concept" as a phrase is being used to refer to the fact that people hold different opinions regarding the processes or merits of globalization, the reason is that in a world with 7 billion people, nobody is going to agree on much of anything. Every concept is contested by definition.
If the intent of the question is to ask about the nature of the contestation, then there are many reasons why people have issues with the processes by which globalization has been occurring. For the most part, globalization has actually been an organic process due to technological change, but doubtless the economic aspects have been specifically driven by particular interests. The outcomes are inequitable – as outcomes of every activity are – and certainly there are people who would prefer different outcomes. There is a view that the drivers of globalization have tended to favor the people with the most power, as those people have held the strongest influence over the course that globalization has taken (e.g. negotiating trade deals, focusing on investment flows over freedom of movement of people, abrogating rights of some peoples in favor of rights of others).
3) Scholars seeking the evaluate globalization have naturally come to disagreement over the definition of the term. For example, Keohane & Nye (2000) question whether globalization simply means interdependence, or if there is a distinct concept of globalization. They also note that such interdependencies would have to be global in nature, though this can easily be contested. The example of a regional alliance between the US and Canada was cited by the authors (p.105). Well, that may seem regional, but Canada just signed a trade deal with the EU – Canada and the US do not exist in a vacuum, but are linked throughout the world, and those linkages can sometimes bleed through to the other nation.
Further, Keohane and Nye were writing in 2000, and thus focused on what is ultimately a somewhat artificial understanding of interdependence as something we create. In 2017, we have a much better understanding of climate change, and thus we realize that any idea that there isn't total world interdependence is ultimately a false notion. Does the economic development of China not affect islands in the Indian Ocean, or nations in the Sahel? Through climate change and global trade we are starting to gain a better understanding of the interdependencies that exist between different parts of the world, but those interdependencies have existed since the age of exploration, and if not then at least since we began burning fossil fuels.

Thus, the different ideas of globalization that Keohane & Nye discuss in their article have existed for much longer than our understanding of those same ideas. But they do note that globalism is multi-faceted, and globalization is the process of these factors "becoming thick" (p.108).
Ritzer and Dean (2015) take a different view, building on processes starting with imperialism and moving through the intervening years. I do not find their approach convincing. First, they ignore the years prior, as though globalization is a phenomenon driven purely by Europeans. The spread of Islam, the spread of China's influence throughout Asia, the Indian Ocean trade, trade among groups in Mesoamerica…there are a lot of examples of these same processes existing without European involvement. Singling out Americanization as though America is somehow the sole source of influence – even the sole source of Western influence – is quite frankly typical American arrogance. Because no other countries make a contribution to globalization.
What this really means is that I find Keohane and Nye more convincing, even though their work is quite dated at this point, but it is more convincing relative to Ritzer and Dean, who simply don't seem to be approaching the subject at all the way I would approach it. Their approach is Ameri-centric , which lends their ideas bias that cannot be overlooked. The cultural bias is simply too strong for me to be convinced; it undermines them too much.
Globalization is best understood as a set of developments, and how those developments have transformed the world. I would find it best to remove political ideology and bias when trying to understand what globalization is and is not. By doing that, one might find it easier to look at the processes for what they are, and give credit to the fact that almost everybody in the world is participating in globalization in some way – understanding the microeconomic choices that lead us to increased globalism. We're all a part of it, and I don't think an approach that ignores the individual decisions and choices that each person makes is really capable of explaining globalization effectively.


References

George Ritzer & Paul Dean. 2015. Chapters 3. Globalization: A Basic Text. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; pages 55-82.

Investopedia (2017) Globalization. Investopedia.com. Retrieved September 11, 2017 from http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/globalization.asp

Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, “Globalization: What's New? What's Not? (And So What?)” Foreign Policy 118 (Spring 2000): 104-120.