In response to the commentaries, we reflect on the pitfalls and opportunities that come with identifying and naming ‘Antipodean economic geographies’ and in particular emphasise the practical aspects of this decision. We also critically reflect on suggestions that we have brought such knowledges into a set of market relations, citing how the recently published International Benchmarking Review of UK Human Geography gives added salience to the intentions of our original paper. Finally, we note the useful ground clearing that these commentaries make for future debates around the politics and whereness of economic geographical knowledge production in new global contexts.
AalbersMB (2013) What if we all work in between? Notes on the geography of geographical knowledge production and consumption. Dialogues in Human Geography3(2). doi: 10.1177/2043820613492640.
2.
BergLD (2013) Hegemonic geographies and their ‘others’: towards an interlocking approach to emplacing geographical knowledges. Dialogues in Human Geography3(2). doi: 10.1177/2043820613493067.
DombroskiK (2013) Always engaging with others: assembling an Antipodean, hybrid economic geography collective. Dialogues in Human Geography3(2). doi: 10.1177/2043820613493155.
5.
HowittR (2013) Here, there, everywhere: further reflections on Antipodean experience and geography. Dialogues in Human Geography3(2). doi: 10.1177/2043820613493068.
6.
McKinnonK (2013) A different kind of difference: knowledge, politics and being Antipodean. Dialogues in Human Geography3(2). doi: 10.1177/2043820613493156.
7.
WrayFDufty-JonesRGibsonCLarnerWBeerALe HeronRO’NeillP (2013) Neither here nor there or always here and there? Antipodean reflections on economic geography. Dialogues in Human Geography3(2). doi: 10.1177/2043820613493158.
