Abstract
Critique of aspects of global cities research formed important points of departure for postcolonial urban scholarship. This commentary revisits the way in which such critique proceeded in relation to wider conventions of academic writing and citation practices. Given the selectivity and simplification involved in attempts to represent any flourishing field of study, it is suggested that we pay more attention to the underlying motivation for and effects of (inevitably) partial critical engagements. The essay by van Meeteren and colleagues is recognized as an important reminder that the boundaries between (sub)fields of research need to remain porous and provisional.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
