The commentaries on my original paper in this forum both challenge the value for critical scholarship of dwelling upon hoaxes and raise important, novel points. This response takes the commentaries as an occasion to place hoaxes within larger shifts de-emphasizing authorial intention and positionality. Commentators’ thoughts in the direction of a broader sense of ‘hoaxing’, as well as of a different sense of ‘positivism’, are discussed in the context of this larger shift.
CupplesJ (2026) The politics of academic deception: a conjunctural analysis. Dialogues in Human Geography16(1): 124–128.
2.
HannahM (2026) Taking ‘nonsense’ seriously: Hoaxes, spoofs, and the epistemic cultures of geography. Dialogues in Human Geography16(1): 102–119.
3.
MoultonA (2026) Taking hoaxes seriously: Epistemic dangers, academic privilege, and social relations of believability. Dialogues in Human Geography16(1): 129–133.
4.
ReillyI (2026) Academic hoaxing, decolonial politics, and epistemic pluriversality. Dialogues in Human Geography16(1): 120–123.
5.
WylyE (2026) Geographies of terror and trust. Dialogues in Human Geography16(1): 134–137.
