Hi, and thanks for this fascinating kaleidoscopic collection. I really appreciate the pluralistic approach. But I’m left quite puzzled! how do you expect readers to critically assess the overall contribution of this article when there’s no attempt to synthesize or evaluate the implications of the 19 lenses you presented? You say each perspective stands on its own, but without any analytical convergence, doesn’t that risk ending up with fragmentation rather than insight? Especially when many of the contributors raise overlapping tensions (like exclusion, data ethics, or colonial legacies), wouldn’t some form of integrative reflection strengthen the collective message? Or was the lack of synthesis a deliberate postdigital statement in itself?
