Article published In:
Language and Dialogue: Online-First Articles

Different levels of co-construction in dialogue

Towards a better understanding of values and norms

| Université de Sherbrooke

A completed research-action project on Climate change adaptation at the regional level (Memphremagog, Québec, Canada) is revisited here, which requires first to briefly recall what is the CCA program, and the project’s context, goals, and characteristics. The aim of the paper is to clarify issues of co-construction in dialogue, implementing a way to analytically distinguish phases of co-construction at the level of the research team’s effort along the project, by following important dialogue episodes. Stemming out of this dialogue analysis, another contribution of this work is to propose a better picture of the internal relationship between three important components of the normative dimension of such projects: pursued values, processual values, and the prescriptions that were required to actualize these values.

Keywords: participation, research-action, co-construction, values, norms, chronotope
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Some requirements of co-constructions
    • 2.1A great variety of expertise
    • 2.2Knowledge and epistemic aspects
    • 2.3Action requirement issues
    • 2.4Need of recognition for shared learning
    • 2.5Setting up the space, planning and organizing
  • 3.Phases of the project and a convention
    • Remarks on these interactions
  • 4.Processual and final values or aims with their links to prescriptions
  • 5.Conclusions
    • 5.1Plans and integration: How can we verify the value of the process?
    • 5.2On requirements, values and ends
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 June 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00175.let
References
Adger, W. Neil, Irene Lorenzoni, and Karen L. O’Brien
2009 Adapting to Climate Change: Thresholds, Values, Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail
1981 The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bolívar, Adriana
2013 “The co-construction of scientific knowledge in intercultural discourse.” Journal of Multicultural Discourses 8(2): 113–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duff, Patricia A.
2002 “The Discursive Co-construction of Knowledge, Identity, and Difference: An Ethnography of Communication in the High School Mainstream.” Applied Linguistics 23(3): 289–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, John and Lea Berrang-Ford
2011 Climate Change Adaptation in Developed Countries. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
1995 “Co-Constructing Meaning in Conversations With an Aphasie Man.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 28(3): 233–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacoby, Sally and Elinor Ochs
1995 “Co-Construction: An Introduction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 28(3): 171–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knieling, Jörg and Leal Filho
2013 Climate Change Governance. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsen, Malene Charlotte
2008 “Understanding Social Networking: On Young People s Construction and Co construction of Identity Online.” In Online Networking – Connecting People India, ed. by K. Sangeetha. Icfai University Press.Google Scholar
Létourneau, Alain
2018 “Differing Versions of Dialogic Aptitude. Bakhtin, Dewey, and Habermas.” In Dialogic Ethics, ed. by Ronald C. Arnett and François Cooren, 127–148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019a “Dialogue considered as a social ensemble of voices.” Language and Dialogue 9(3): 333–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019b « Inclusion démocratique : retour sur un cas de gouvernance décentrée de l’adaptation aux changements climatiques.» Le Climatoscope 1(1): 90–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moser, Susanne C. and Maxwell T. Boykoff
(eds) 2013 Successful adaptation to climate change. Linking science and policy in a rapidly changing world. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oudshoorn, Nelly E. J. and Trevor Pinch
2003 How Users Matter: The co-construction of users and technologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, James R. and Elizabeth Van Every
2000 The Emergent Organization. Communication as its Site and Surface. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Thomas, Isabelle and Nathalie Bleau
2012 Analyser la vulnérabilité sociétale et territoriale aux inondations en milieu urbain dans le contexte des changements climatiques, en prenant comme cas d’étude la ville de Montréal. Montreal: Ouranos. Available at [URL]
Trognon, Alain
2013 “Pragmatics re-established on its feet: Weigand’s Mixed Game Model 2010.” Language and Dialogue 3(3): 457–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vaillancourt, Yves
2009 “Social economy in the co-construction of public policy.” Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 80(2): 1370–4788. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vuopala, Piia, Jaana Näykki, et al.
2019 “Knowledge co-construction activities and task-related monitoring in scripted collaborative learning.” Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 211: 234–249. Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weigand, Edda
2010 Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 “IADA history. The unity of dialogue and its multiple faces.” Language and Dialogue 7(1): 63–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weiyun He, Agnes
1995 “Co-Constructing Institutional Identities: The Case of Student Counselees.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 28(3): 213–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar