Clarifications on refocusing the AIME inquiry
Dear readers and contributors
See below some clarifications following a question on contributions .
We don't want to limit the range and form of contributions too much. Our message was only an appeal to refocus on what is most important and what is most lacking on the site so far.
There are many other ways to contribute:
- new documents which are better than the ones we have introduced in the D column;
- alternative metalanguage which is better than the one proposed by the author;
- alternative definitions of the modes that would be better, more complete and more topical than the one we have introduced;
- and also, very importantly, what would be a more "diplomatic" way to define the cohabitation of two or more modes to the satisfaction of the various stake-holders? Plus all the other styles of contribution we have not yet thought about.
In the case of crossings, the more documented they are, the better. You might want to follow the questionnaire, but any other way is okay too...
In this project we alternate wildly between closure and openness. This is why it is so demanding! But let us reassure you, it does not require a PhD in anthropology. Actually, practitioners are often more attuned to the process than academics. So feel free to contribute in the way you feel most comfortable with.
The AIME team