Abstract
In our comments on Pontecorvo and Fasulo’s (1999) paper we propose that contact with an object of investigation sets in motion a dynamic network of meanings which structures and canalizes a complex set or repertoire of possible interpretations available to the researcher/commentator. Some of those meanings might be collective, such as those produced over long historical or prospective time. Others derive from personal experiences and expectations obtained throughout life. The main influences come from the roles and counter-roles reciprocally attributed to and assumed by each person in a here-and-now situation. Thus, simultaneously similar and diverse scientific discourses are produced. A more detailed description of the production conditions of the verbal transcripts of the family’s meal, by allowing a finer analysis of the interplay of factors that together constrain and canalize the ‘discourse game’ under investigation, could help to improve the agreement between researcher and commentators.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
