Representing dialogues-in-the-field

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.