Читать книгу The Sage Handbook of Social Constructionist Practice - Группа авторов - Страница 108

Once all the first round of conversations have taken place, then the students transcribe all the recordings. We suggest that the facilitators of the research do this exercise. When listening to the voices, new inner dialogues emerge; we notice words, ideas, and nuances that we did not pay attention to when the conversation happened. It also helps the responding processes. In a way, the transcription is the starting point of this process. It allows us to take notes, write follow-up questions to help clarify, add our inner dialogue, and start bringing in voices from books, articles, daily life encounters, movies, songs, etc.

Janice DeFehr (2008) describes this stage as part of her dissertation process, as follows:

Narrating an account of the dialogue, for me, means telling a story of the dialogue's emergence from start to ‘finish,’ voice-by-voice, moment-to-moment, as accurately as I can. I narrate the dialogue from my ‘dual’ vantage point within it, first as a participant in the live spoken dialogue, and second, as a listener responding to the recorded conversation many months later. Not every word uttered in the original dialogue is included in the narration, although all words within quotation marks are written exactly as I hear them spoken. At the same time, additional words appear that were never part of the original spoken dialogue: my response to the dialogue recording expands the narration at various junctures. As I develop an account of the dialogue, I participate in the interchange with my colleagues once again. I cannot help but respond – with acknowledgment, questions, replies, additional ideas, and also, with feelings. Without a plan to guide me, I respond into the dialogue again for ‘another first time’ (Garfinkel, 1967, p. 9). My goal in narrating the dialogue is to invite involvement and active response, from readers of this text, and from myself. The production of a tightly coherent narrative end product is not a priority for me as I write. (p. 12)

Our guests to this article share with us how they did it. Christian mentioned how he never knew what his responses were going to be, and the dialogues had a life of their own: ‘… suddenly, very theoretical ideas appeared, they simply appeared as a response to all that was said in the conversation’. During this transcribing/responding process, the students start weaving what Cynthia describes as a multicolored shawl that will end up being the result of the inquiry.

Carolina describes responding as very organic. ‘[How something] makes you feel, how does that emotion emerge … how that reading, that anecdote, that thing that you just heard, that can be the result of anger, of joy, or something very tender … then I think that all the multiplicity of emotions and thoughts that arise, in a very spontaneous way, mean that I am responding’.

Cynthia also describes how responding was a constant ‘I allowed myself to respond by saying I am feeling this … a responsive process, rather than a process of analysis … for me to respond, is the process’. What takes place at this stage, is what Shotter (2008) describes as spontaneously responding to those words that touched/moved the facilitator during the conversations.