Theorizing Diaspora: I Wonder

While reading Nation, Migration and Globalization: Points of Contention in Diaspora Studies, I realized that much of the article discussed diaspora as a concept itself, and made references to how hotly debated it was. The article mentions several times what it is and what it isn't, but never comes to a completely direct and solid definition of diaspora. While certainly many critical theories never do garner a straightforward definition, I find it very interesting that many established academics argue diaspora, yet many simple students in a 500 level course are running rampant with their own definition of diaspora.

What I'm wondering exactly is whether or not these academics who had made what diaspora is, or is not, their business would approve of this. How would they view this course, and the things people discuss, or write about, or even this post? Would they want to contribute, or would they simply rather tell us how it really is, as opposed to hearing what we think? I wonder how much their opinion of diaspora itself will change in ten years' time.

I do not like being told, "This is how it is." I much prefer to hear/read many sources and come to a conclusion myself. While reading the article, it would appear they do not agree. Is this because I am not an established academic? Is it part of my class or racial privilege that I am unaccustomed to being told how it is, and I am having difficulty accepting it? I wonder.