Representing dialogues-in-the-field
The shared responsibility of scientific aesthetics
Contemporary researchers can rely upon a wide repertoire of different and legitimized ways of representing field dialogues in scientific texts. This article addresses the issue of the crucial role these ways of reporting dialogues play in creating different data from the ‘same’ raw material and in the construction of very different kinds of scientific understanding of the phenomenon the original dialogues supposedly enlighten. By empirically illustrating this point, the author concludes by arguing in favor of the unavoidable rhetorical roots of scientific understanding. This typical relativistic claim does not lead to some kind of nihilistic stance. Rather, it delineates a clear zone of distributed responsibility. By defining what kind of knowledge they expect from a scientific account, the scientific community and, in a less visible way, the readers are crucial agents in orienting the researcher’s rhetorical choice as to represent dialogues-in-the-field. The researcher’s choice is, therefore, a profoundly dialogical decision.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Caronia, Letizia & André H. Caron
2019.
Morality in Scientific Practice: The Relevance and Risks of Situated Scientific Knowledge in Application-Oriented Social Research.
Human Studies 42:3
► pp. 451 ff.
Caronia, Letizia & Luigina Mortari
2015.
The agency of things: how spaces and artefacts organize the moral order of an intensive care unit.
Social Semiotics 25:4
► pp. 401 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.