Cultural-­affective  bonds  in  field-­research:    Towards  a  

semiotic-­constructivist  understanding  of  circus  daily  
life  
________________________________________________________  
SUARA  BASTOS    
Institute  of  Psychology-­‐University  of  São  Paulo-­‐USP,  Brazil.  

DANILO  SILVA  GUIMARÃES  

Institute  of  Psychology-­‐University  of  São  Paulo-­‐USP,  Brazil.  

This   paper   is   about   the   inherent   tensions   in   the   self-­‐other   relationships   that   emerge   from  
approximations   and   estrangements   imposed   by   field   research   situations.   This   matter   is  
discussed  in  terms  of  the  affective  bonds  between  researcher  and  participants,  and  in  relation  
to   the   personal   involvement   of   the   researcher   with   the   object   of   study.   The   investigation   is  
based   on   the   dialogical   perspective   of   the   semiotic-­‐cultural   constructivism,   incorporating  
recent   reflections   concerning   the   notion   of   perspective   and   dialogical   multiplication.   We  
forwarded   the   development   of   a   research   project   concerning   meaning   construction   on   the  
topic   of   daily   life   in   the   circus.   The   interest   in   this   subject   arose   from   previous   personal  
experience   of   the   first   author   of   this   study.   We   sought   to   a)   identify   descriptive   elements   of  
everyday   life   in   the   circus   b)   the   moments   of   tension   that   emerge   in   the   self-­‐other  
relationships   and   c)   the   dialogical   position   that   emerge   at   the   process   of   meaning  
construction.   To   this   paper,   we   selected   an   analysis   of   a   content   registered   in   the   field  
notebook   about   their   first   meeting   that   took   place   during   the   process   of   information  
gathering,  preliminary  to  the  research  planned  procedure.  The  selected  report  allowed  us  to  
reflect  on  the  intersubjective  and  intrasubjective  tensions  we  may  encounter  as  we  speak  to  
others  from  different  dialogical  perspectives.    

Although   cultural   psychologists   are   often   committed   to   their   own   cultural  

background,   the   multiple   subtle   ways   such   commitment   interferes   with   his/her  
knowledge   construction   process   remain   unreflective.   This   paper   deals   with   a  
fundamental   question   to   theoretical   and   methodological   research   in   the   dialogical  
cultural   psychology:   the   inherent   tensions   in   the   self-­‐other   relationships   emerging  
from  approximations  and  estrangements  imposed  by  field  research  situations.  We  will  
discuss  this  issue,  both  in  terms  of  the  affective  bonds  between  the  researcher  and  the  
participants,   and   in   relation   to   the   personal   involvement   of   the   researcher   with   the  
object  of  study.    
Between   2012   and   2013,   we   forwarded   the   development   of   a   Master´s   research  
project   at   the   Institute   of   Psychology   of   the   University   of   São   Paulo,   Brazil.   This  
research   concerned   meaning   constructions   on   the   topic   of   daily   life   in   the   circus,  
looking   especially   into   the   self-­‐perspective   of   inhabitants   of   a   particular   circus   in  
Brazil.    
 

1  

 
  
 

The   interest   in   such   topic   had   arisen   from   previous   personal   experience   of   the   first  
author   of   this   paper,   who   worked   and   accompanied   three   different   circuses   in   Mexico  
at  the  eighties,  for  a  period  of  four  years.  It  was  a  challenging  experience,  among  other  
things,   because   the   daily   life   of   circuses   inhabitants   is   singular:   living   in   trailers,  
traveling  in  caravans,  constantly  moving  from  city  to  city  for  the  presentations.  Years  
after  leaving  the  circus  life  and  the  profession  of  circus  performer,  the  first  author  of  
this   paper   decided   to   major   in   psychology.   Nevertheless,   the   former   experience   was  
affectively   meaningful   and   remained   with   her   during   the   new   formation   period,  
because   experiencing   the   circus   universe   was   personally   transformative   since   it  
provided  her  with  a  perspective  of  a  new  way  of  living,  a  new  mindset  towards  family,  
work   and   the   circus.   Moreover,   it   presented   to   her   new   aspects   of   living   in   a   group,  
which  modified  her  own  way  of  living  and  the  way  in  which  she  related  to  the  world.  
 
Consequently,   the   circus   led   the   researcher   towards   psychology,   in   order   to  
comprehend  human  relationships  in  peculiar  sociocultural  fields,  as  well  as  elaborate  
some   gaps   in   the   intercultural   boundaries,   aiming   at   analyzing   the   uneasiness   and  
meaning   constructions   that   emerge   out   of   life   trajectories   that   penetrate   different  
cultural  contexts.  
 
Semiotic-­‐cultural   constructivism   in   psychology   (cf.   Simão   2005,   2010)   led   the   ex-­‐
circus-­‐performer-­‐now-­‐psychologist  to  go  back  to  the  circus  as  a  researcher,  in  order  
to  understand  the  contemporaneous  circus  everyday  life  from  this  novel  position.  This  
approach   guides   the   psychological   investigation   to   focus   the   genesis   of   the   research  
processes,  to  observe  the  limits  in  the  articulation  of  theory  and  method,  and  regards  
the  researcher  as  an  important  part  of  the  investigative  process,  instead  preconizing  
the  impartiality  in  the  process  of  knowledge  construction.  
 
Considering   the   understanding   of   the   human   being   in   its   uniqueness   regarding   the  
cultural  context  in  which  we  are  immersed,  and  based  on  what  was  reported  by  the  
research´s  participants,  three  things  were  investigated  a)  descriptive  elements  of  their  
everyday   life,   b)   the   moments   of   tension   in   the   self-­‐other   relations   and   c)   dialogical  
positions  that  emerged  in  the  process  of  meaning  construction.    
 
We   supposed   that   such   focus   of   investigation   demanded   a   strategy   of   participatory  
research,   involving   the   action   research   methodology   (cf.   Spink,   1976,   2003),   and  
ethnography   (cf.   Oliveira,   1998;   Andrade,   Morato   and   Schimidt,   2007).   These  
methodological   references   emphasize   the   active   role   of   the   researcher   and   of   the  
participant   in   the   scientific   enterprise.   Therefore,   the   stream   of   events   that   become  
object   for   psychological   analysis   (cf.   Guimarães,   2010a)   is   understood   as   a   dynamic,  
open-­‐ended   system   (cf.   Valsiner,   1998,   2001,   2007).   As   Moura   and   Hernandez   (2012)  
emphasize,  the  attention  of  the  researcher  needs  to  be  focused  on  the  experience  and  
on  the  finding  of  semiotic  tracks  of  the  process  in  course.  
 
Dialogical  Cultural  Psychology  and  the  Construction  of  the  Researcher  Position  
 

2  

 
  
 

Dialogical  approach  to  cultural  psychology  asserts  that  knowledge  is  mediated  by  the  
position  of  the  subject  in  the  face  of  an  object.  In  social  and  scientific  fields,  multiple  
positions   can   emerge   in   the   face   of   a   singular   object.   Therefore,   knowledge   is   a  
dynamic  and  transitory  feature  linked  to  the  historical-­‐cultural  fields  and  transformed  
during   the   dialogical   process   of   meaning   negotiation   between   the   Alter   and   the   Ego  
(cf.   Marková,   2006).   The   researcher,   as   a   knowledge   constructor,   actively  assumes   a  
position   that   allows   him   or   her   to   present   a   psychological   perspective   towards   the  
investigated  topic.  Researcher,  object  of  investigation  and  knowledge  construction  are  
interdependent,  so  it  is  necessary  to  take  into  account  the  scientific-­‐semiotic-­‐cultural  
process  that  leads  to  the  emergence  of  novelties  in  the  psychological  framework.  
 
Simão  (2010)  argues  that  theoretical  and  methodological  framework  of  the  semiotic-­‐
cultural   constructivism   emerged   in   the   last   decades   of   the   20th   century   out   of  
propositions   from   Lev   Vygotsky,   Mikhail   Bakthin,   George   Mead,   Pierre   Janet,   Jean  
Piaget.   Contemporarily,   the   cultural   psychologies   of   Ernst   Boesch,   Jaan   Valsiner   and  
the   dialogical   conceptions   of   Marková   and   Rommetveit   granted   a   broader  
understanding   of   the   personal-­‐cultural   symbolic   development   in   articulation   with  
their  precursory  ideas.    
 
Ernst  Boesch,  a  pioneer  of  the  European  cultural  psychology,  emphasizes  that  through  
symbolic   actions,   people   construct   personal   meanings   in   articulation   with   the  
meanings   constructed   by   the   others,   emerging   from   the   interaction   of   objective   and  
subjective  references  with  the  symbolic  cultural  field  of  action  (Simão,  2002).    
 
Methodologically,  it  implies  highlighting  the  options  and  the  historicity  of  changes  in  
the   course   of   investigation.   The   researcher   works   to   understand   the   changes  
concerning   the   development   of   his   relationship   with   the   participants,   as   well   as   to  
interpret   the   themes   that   emerge   in   the   course   of   the   research   (cf.   Boesch,   1991;  
Valsiner,   1998;   Guimarães   and   Simão,   2007,   Guimarães,   2011).   The   hermeneutic  
option   of   the   semiotic-­‐cultural   constructivism   in   psychology   follows   this   path   of  
investigation  (Simão,  2005;  2010;  Valsiner,  2007).    
 
The  investigative  framework  of  semiotic-­‐cultural  constructivism  in  psychology  elects  
the  disquieting  experience  as  the  cornerstone  to  the  comprehension  of  I-­‐other-­‐world  
relationships:    
 
By  disquieting   experience,  I  mean  experience  that  hurts  our  expectances,  prodding  the  
subject  cognitively  as  well  as  affectively  to  feel,  think  and  act.  The  affected  person  may  
be   the   actor   who   lives   the   experience   itself,   or   another   person   who   co-­‐experiences  the  
actor’s   disquiet   through   verbal   dialogue   or   joint   silence.   The   co-­‐experiencer   is,  
therefore,  displaced  from  his/her  own  previous  position  as  is  the  interlocutor  (Simão,  
2003,  italics  in  the  original).    
 
 
In   this   paper,   the   perspectives   of   researcher   and   participants   on   the   circus   are      
regarded   considering   the   contrast   between   different   life   trajectories,   which   can   lead  

3  

 
  
 

to   ruptures   of   expectancies   in   the   dialogue,   demanding   the   reconstruction   of   personal  

semiotic-­‐cultural   meanings.   That   is,   disquieting   gives   the   researcher   and   the  
participants   the   opportunity   to   transform   themselves   in   order   to   reduce   the   tension  
that   emerged   in   the   interaction,   leading   to   the   reconstruction   of   the   cultural   field  
semiotically  organized  along  with  others  and  the  world  of  things.    
 
Planning  the  Field  Research:    Circus  as  a  Field  of  Cultural  Symbolic  Actions      
 
The   investigation   departed   from   the   dialogical   perspective   of   the   semiotic-­‐cultural  
constructivism,  incorporating  some  recent  reflections  on  the  notion  of  field  research.  
The   notion   of   ‘field’   adopted   here   does   not   refer   to   a   place   outside   the   laboratory  
where   the   researcher   goes   to   collect   data.   The   ‘field’   is   not   a   physically   determined  
place  but,  as  Kurt  Lewin  asserted,  it  is  “the  totality  of  psychological  facts  that  are  not  
real  in  itself,  but  are  real  because  they  produce  effects"  (Spink,  2003,  p.  21).    
 
From   this,   some   visits   to   the   territory   were   planned   in   our   investigative   project   in  
order   to   focalize   the   daily   life   of   the   circus   and   the   personal   meanings   that   could  
emerge   from   ordinary   situations.   After   that,   six   adult   circus   artists   came   forward   to  
participate  in  interviews  with  the  researcher.    Two  of  them  were  female  and  four  were  
male.   The   interviews   were   guided   by   a   script   of   semi-­‐structured   questions.   After   each  
audio-­‐recorded   interview,   the   participants   were   asked   to   take   photos,   within   the  
circus,  of  things  or  places  considered  personally  meaningful.  They  were  free  to  choose  
the   number   of   photos   to   be   taken.   We   used   this   photographic   mediation   in   order   to  
understand   the   meaning   of   the   picture   through   the   eyes   of   its   author   (Neiva-­‐Silva   and  
Koller,   2002),   that   is,   the   images   represent   an   opportunity   to   understand   how   each  
participant   sees   his/her   own   universe.   Finally,   after   they   had   taken   the   photos,   we  
asked   the   participants   to   make   some   personal   comments   about   the   image   they   had  
chosen  to  focus  on.    
 
From   the   analysis   of   the   empirical   data,   we   observed   enchantment   of   the   participants  
in   relation   to   the   circus   and   its   itinerant   lifestyle.   In   this   common   field   of   meanings,  
members  share  aspects  related  to  family  as  well  as  carry  out  professional,  social  and  
interpersonal   relationships.   In   the   narratives,   concerns   related   to   the   future   of   the  
circus   emerged,   mainly   due   the   legal   removal   of   animals   from   the   arena   in   some  
Brazilian  cities,  which  caused  a  significant  drop  in  ticket  sales;  a  fact  which  indicates  
that   at   this   time   the   circus   is   experiencing   a   period   of   cultural   changes,   since   its  
presentations   have   always   been   linked   to   the   presentation   of   animals.   Some  
participants  share  the  view  that  there  is  estrangement  from  the  surrounding  society  
regarding  the  circus  business  and  those  who  dedicate  their  lives  to  it,  emphasizing  the  
tenuous  relationship  between  the  public  and  private  sectors  in  this  universe.    
 
RESULTS  AND  DISCUSSION  
 
As  a  result  of  the  field  accomplishment,  we  recorded  six  interviews,  more  than  3  hours  
of  data,  and  a  total  of  24  photos  were  taken  by  the  interviewees.  All  data  was  collected  
4  

 
  
 

with   the   permission   of   all   participants   through   a   Statement   of   Consent   which   was  
prepared   in   accordance   with   the   standards   of   the   National   Committee   of   Ethics   in  
Research  (CONEP/BRAZIL).  

In  addition  to  all  audio-­‐recorded  data  the  researcher  kept  a  field  notebook,  which  was  
an   important   device   to   the   investigation   and   contained   her   impressions   about   the  
experience.  Much  to  our  surprise,  the  field  notebook  precisely  provided  the  empirical  
data  that  allowed  us  to  understand  a  crucial  moment  of  the  investigation:  we  found  in  
the  preliminary  visits  the  key  that  led  us  to  understand  the  construction  of  a  shared  
setting  to  the  investigative  path.  
 
In  this  direction,  we  intend  to  promote  a  reflection  on  aspects  of  a  dialogue  between  
the  researcher  and  one  of  the  members  of  the  circus,  through  the  analysis  of  their  first  
meeting   that   occurred   during   the   process   of   information   gathering.   At   this  
preliminary  moment,  the  researcher  chatted  with  some  circus  members.  We  decided  
to   present   an   analysis   of   the   following   field   work   written   report,   instead   of   some   of  
the   audio-­‐recorded   data,   because   we   considered   that   this   account   offers   a   clear   image  
of  the  cultural  commitment  of  the  researcher  and  participants  of  the  dialogue  during  
knowledge  construction.  
 
The  Situation  of  the  Meeting  
 
This  meeting  took  place  in  the  circus,  in  the  second  of  three  visits  for  the  preliminary  
investigation.   Since   she   did   not   know   anyone   from   that   circus   company   or   anyone  
who  worked  there,  the  main  reason  for  these  visits  was  to  come  forward  and  report,  
according  to  research  guidelines,  to  someone  who  was  responsible  for  the  institution  
seeking  a  possible  authorization  for  doing  research  in  that  space1,  and  also  to  make  a  
first  contact  with  the  members  of  the  circus  in  order  to  invite  them  to  participate  in  
the  study.  
The  analyzed  dialogue  with  the  circus  performer,  named  here  as  CM  (Member  of  the  
Circus),   is   the   result   of   the   researcher´s   memories   from   the   meeting   that   took   place  
between  them,  which  is  shown  in  the  manner  the  researcher  wrote  in  her  field  diary  
in  the  same  day,  after  the  meeting  with  CM.  Therefore,  since  it  is  not  a  transcript  of  the  
interview,   it   should   not   be   understood   as   a   fragment   or   a   recording.   We   decided   to  
present  the  field  note  as  a  dialogue  because  it  was  the  manner  in  which  the  researcher  
spontaneously   registered   this   moment.   Besides,   it   allows   the   reader   to   be   in   touch  
with  the  intensity  of  the  intersubjective  involvement  between  the  participants  in  the  
meeting,   without   the   textual   mediation   of   a   third   person   narrator   (although   we  
consider  that  an  active  narrator  is  always  present,  implicitly  or  explicitly).  

It   was   predictable   that   her   coming   back   to   the   circus   as   a   researcher   would   put   her   in  
touch   with   her   previous   experiences   as   an   artist.     Consequently,   the   researcher  
expected  to  find  an  agreeable  and  familiar  place,  which  was  confirmed  in  her  first  visit  
                                                                                                                       
1  The  
circus   administrator   accepted   the   research   after   being   informed   about   the   objectives   and  
methodological  procedures.  
5  

 
  
 

to  the  circus.  Despite  being  aware  that  the  approach  to  the  circus  territory  would  be  a  
negotiated   process   —   which   is   usually   the   case   in   fieldwork   that   includes  
communitarian  visits  —  the  researcher  created  the  expectancy  of  being  welcomed  by  
all   of   the   circus   members.   Then   a   disquieting   experience   emerged,   which   could   be  
observed  in  the  following  dialogue.  
 
 
Excerpt  from  the  field  notebook  of  Suara  Bastos2:  
 
01  S.  -­‐  Good  evening!  
02  CM.  -­‐  We  here  at  the  circus  do  not  like  to  give  interviews!  We  are  all  illiterate.    

At  this  point  the  lady  in  the  ticket  booth  said  aloud:  
03  TL.  -­‐    Not  all  of  us!  Speak  for  yourself,  because  I'm  not  illiterate.  
04   S.   -­‐   Ah,   but   my   aim   is   not   only   to   do   an   interview,   I   would   also   like   to   get   to   know   you.   I've  

worked  in  the  circus  and  I  love  it.  My  research  is  just  to  talk  a  little  bit  about  the  history  of  the  
circus.    
Although  he  remained  serious,  she  asked:  
05  S.  –  Do  many  people  come  here  to  do  interviews?  
06  CM.  -­‐  Pfff,  people  come  here  all  the  time.  Just  the  other  day  some  folks  came  from  the  UG.    
07  S.  –  And  what  was  their  work  about,  do  you  know?  
08  CM.  -­‐  I  do  not.  
09  S.  -­‐  Sorry,  what's  your  name?  
10  CM.  -­‐  A.  
11  S.  -­‐  A.   Nice   to   meet   you   A.,   I'm   Suara.   As   I   said,   I've   worked   and   lived   in   the   circus   before   and   I  

like  it  a  lot.  The  aim  of  my  research  is  to  show  people  the  circus  as  it  really  is,  from  the  artists’  
point  of  view.  I  would  like  to  show  people  how  great  it  is  and  that  it’s  not  what  most  people  think  
it  is.  
12   CM.   -­‐   It's   true,   they   think   we're   a   bunch   of   illiterates   who   do   not   shower.  
13   S.   -­‐   I  know  that  and  that’s  the  reason  I'm  here.  I  am  a  student  at  the  University  of  São  Paulo,  

and   the   topic   of   my   dissertation   is   the   circus.   I   would   like   to   contribute   to   demystify   this   idea  
about  circus  artists.  
14  CM.   You're   from   USP?   Oh,   I   know   USP.   I   had   an   accident   once   and   they   took   me   to   the   hospital  

there  and  I  was  very  well  cared-­for.  The  hospital  is  very  good.    
15  S.  -­‐  What  happened?  
16  -­‐  CM.  –  I  had  something  in  my  eye,  but  they  took  me   there  and  I  was  promptly  attended.  Today  

I  am  fine.  
17  S.  –  I’m  glad,  USP  is  really  very  cool.  
18  CM.  -­‐  I  think  that  after  this  we’re  going  to  a  place  near  there.  
19  S.  -­‐  Really?  That's  cool.  The  other  day  I  saw  a  circus  right  in  front  of  it.  I  think  it  was  C.S.  
20  CM  -­‐  Yeah...  but  we  can’t  stay  in  those  grounds.  
21  S.  -­‐  How  so?  
22  CM.  -­‐  They  only  rent  it  to  outsiders.  It  is  absurd.  

                                                                                                                       
2
This  encounter  with  a  member  of  the  circus  occurred  in  a  casual  way.  As  the  researcher  approached  
the   circus   entry   she   noticed   the   presence   of   a   guy   who   was   talking   to   the   lady   in   the   ticket   booth.   As   he  
seemed  to  be  quite  relaxed  she  greeted  “Good  evening”.  Then  the  following  dialogue  started,  where  S  is  
the  Researcher;  CM,  the  member  of  the  circus,  and  TL,  the  ticket  booth  lady.  
6  

 
  
 
23   S.   -­‐   You   are   absolutely   right,   I   agree   with   you.   For   this   reason   I   believe   that   my   job   is  
important.  I'd  like  to  help  change  the  image  that  people  have  of  the  circus,  because  I  know  from  
my  experience  that  most  people  are  unaware  of  what  the  routine  and  daily  life  in  the  circus  are  
really  like,  and  for  this  reason  they  have  a  misconception  of  it.  
24  CM.  -­‐  I  understand,  and  a  master's  degree  has  a  much  broader  scope,  doesn't  it?  
25   S.   –   With  no  doubt,  that’s  why  I  am  here.  But  I  will  only  speak  to  those  who  are  interested  in  

participating  in  the  research,  participation  is  not  mandatory.  In  addition,  neither  participant  nor  
the  Circus  will  be  identified.  
26  CM.  -­‐  Ah!  
27  S.  –  Have  you  been  here  long?  
28  CM.  -­‐  My  whole  life.  
29  S.  -­‐  What  is  your  role  here?  
30  CM.  -­‐  I  do  everything,  but  most  of  the  time  I'm  the  driver.  There  used  to  be  two  of  us,  now  it’s  

just  me.  I’m  the  one  who  drives  the  sound  car.  
31  S.  -­‐  Oh,  so  you  do  the  advertising?  I  hear  you  drive  through  my  street.  
32  CM.  -­‐  You  live  near  here?  
33  S.  -­‐  On  the  street  parallel  to  this  one,  we  are  very  close.  
34  CM.  -­‐  Oh,  I  know  where  that  is.  I  know  quite  a  lot  here.  
35  S.  –  Do  you  have  friendships  outside  the  circus?  
36  CM.  -­‐  We  always  do,  but  usually  we  do  not  relate  much  with  outsiders.  
37  S.  -­‐  Why  not?  
38  CM.  -­‐  I  don’t  know,  they  don’t  want  much  contact  with  us.  
39  S.  -­‐  And  do  you  want  contact  with  them?  
40  CM.  -­‐  Yeah...    there’s  also  that.  I  think  it's  a  bit  of  both.  
41  S.  –  How  do  you  call  people  who  are  not  from  the  circus,  I  mean,  the  ones  who  do  not  live  in  the  

circus?  
42  CM.  –  I  don´t  know…  I  don´t  know,  they  are  from  other  society.  

 
 
Disquieting  Experience  and  Knowledge  Construction  
 
Being   immediately   challenged   by   CM   in   a   rude   manner   evinced   the   restlessness   and  
strangeness   caused   by   the   arrival   of   an   alien   who   was   immediately   fitted   into   a  
previously   conceived   category.   CM   expressed   a   preconception   about   an   academic  
research.   We   are   using   the   notion   of   preconception   in   the   Gadamerian   sense  
(Gadamer,  1985;  Simão  2005;  2010),  according  to  which    

[…]   each   person   entering   a   dialogue   will   unavoidably   bring   his/her   presuppositions  
with   him/her   (cf.   Taylor,   2002);   the   issue,   then,   is   not   to   get   rid   of   our   own  
presuppositions,  but  to  take  into  account  that  the  other  will  have  his/her  own,  which  
will  probably  enter  into  some  disagreement  with  ours  (Guimarães,  2011,  p.  146).    

Such   situation   led   CM   to   refuse   the   researcher   approach   by   means   of   using   a   social  
representation   as   a   symbolic   resource3  to   keep   him   away   from   what   was   supposed   to  

                                                                                                                       
3  The   notions   of   social   representation   and   symbolic   resources   are   being   used   here   to   refer   to   a   dynamic  

meaningful   semiotic   device   used   to   organize   the   disquieting   experience   and   to   enable   a   shared  
7  

 
  
 

be   her   interest.   By   saying   “we  are  all  illiterate”,   he   is   professing   his   belief   that   being  
such   means   that   there   is   nothing   he   could   possibly   contribute   to   the   research,  
reaffirming  that  the  researcher  does  not  belong  to  his  universe  and  how  far  they  are  
from   each   other.   To   the   researcher,   this   was   a   distressing   and   unexpected   moment  
because   even   though she   tried   to   get   closer   as   a former   circus   performer   she   was  
immediately  identified  and  received  as  an  academic.  

At   this   point,   a   gap   emerged   between   the   situation   itself   and   the   researcher’s  
expectations   on   how   she   would   be   treated.   The   dialogue   evinced   a   tension   that  
emerged  from  rupture  of  expectation  that  she  had  for  the  initial  contact.  Apparently,  
this   led   her   to   keep   talking   (or   not)   with   him   in   a   process   of   affective-­‐cognitive  
reconstructions  that  demanded  a  reorganization  of  meaning  –  something  that  possibly  
also   occurred   with   CM   at   that   moment.   When   the   ticket   booth   lady   intervened   and  
disagreed   with   CM   by   saying   “Not   all   of   us!   Speak   for   yourself,   because   I´m   not”,   she  
indicates  that  he  should  speak  only  for  himself  and  not  for  all  circus  workers.  So  the  
lady´s   intervention   as   a   member   of   the   community   not   only   denotes   the   intrinsic  
diversity   in   the   cultural   field   in   question,   where   a   variety   of   “availableness”   for   the  
meeting  with  the  “other”  co-­‐exist,  but  also  creates  a  plan  for  intersubjective  sharing,  
reducing  the  difference  between  the  participants  of  the  dialogue.  Researcher  and  CM  
were   considered   as   owners   of   a   same   knowledge   and   social   condition   provided   by  
literacy   because   of   the   active   intervention   of   the   ticket   booth,   questioning   the  
distancing   process   carried   out   by   CM.   Her   attitude   brought   more   comfort   to   the  
researcher  because  by  then  she  feared  being  ostracized  by  the  lady  too.  
 
So  she  glimpsed  the  possibility  to  carry  on  the  dialogue  with  CM  through  a  different  
approach,   since   the   desire   for   some   kind   of   sharing   of   meanings   requires   adjustments  
of   the   different   positions   of   the   interlocutors   in   the   dialogue   (Rommetveit,   1994,  
Guimarães,  2010a).  Looking  for  a  way  to  overcome  the  situation,  and  also  looking  for  
a  closer  approach,  the  researcher  decided  to  justify  her  presence  to  CM  saying  that  her  
aim   was   not   only   to   do   an   interview,   but   that   she   would   also   like   to   get   to   know   them  
and  explained  that  she  had  worked  in  the  circus  and  liked  it  a  lot.  
 
By  portraying  herself  as  one  of  them,  or  rather,  as  someone  who  also  is  (or  was)  a  part  
of   the   circus,   she   minimized   the   resistance   and   tension   that   had   been   established  
before.   She   places   herself   as   someone   who   knows   the   context   in   which   he   lives   and  
which   comprises   somewhat   with   what   he   feels.   Although   he   remained   serious,   the  
researcher   changed   the   focus   of   the   dialogue,   displacing   the   anxious   aspect   of   the  
meeting   to   another   situation   by   asking   him   if   there   were   many   people   going   to   the  
circus  to  conduct  research.  He  answered  affirmatively.    
 

The   researcher   aimed   to   know   if   there   would   have   been   any   previous   unpleasantness  
or   dissatisfaction   with   this   practice   and   those   who   practice   it.   She   reasoned   that  
perhaps  too  many  people  had  already  sought  the  circus  to  conduct  research  and  that  
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
background   for   the   continuity   of   the   communicative   process   (cf.   Moscovici,   2003;   Marková,   2006;  
Zittoun,  2006).  
8  

 
  
 

this   had   somehow   displeased   CM;   or   worse   still,   maybe   he   had   had   personal   issues  
with   some   other   researcher.   When   she   asked   him   what   people   usually   researched  
about,  he  told  her  he  did  not  know,  once  again  making  no  effort  to  hide  his  discomfort  
with   her   presence   and   making   it   clear   that   he   would   not   participate   in   the  
investigation.    
As  he  did  not  show  any  interest  in  continuing  to  talk  about  the  topic,  the  researcher  
tried   to   show   him   her   bond   with   the   circus   and   her   goals   with   the   research,  
reinforcing  the  fact  that  she  had  worked  in  the  circus  earlier  in  life  and  emphasizing  
that  her  intentions  were  to  clarify  a  little  bit  more  what  is  the  circus  and  the  circus  life  
as   a   way   to   demystify   possible   misconceptions   that   could   exist   in   the   opinion   of  
people  who  do  not  belong  to  this  universe.  CM  agrees  with  her  point,  finally  allowing  
some  sharing  of  plans  to  take  place  between  them.  
Next,  the  researcher  mentioned  the  institution  in  which  she  studies  and  do  research.  
CM  not  only  knew  the  institution  but  he  had  had  a  good  experience  there.  He  had  been  
well   attended   at   the   University   Hospital   when   he   had   suffered   an   accident   at   the  
circus.  A  process  of  greater  trust  towards  her  and  her  intentions  began.  
Once  she  was  able  to  make  affective-­‐cognitive  adjustments  relevant  to  this  dialogue,  
she   also   allowed   CM   to   make   a   similar   movement,   which   can   be   seen   when   he  
expresses   his   knowledge   of   some   aspects   from   the   researcher’s   environment.   The  
researcher  was  put  in  a  position  where  she  had  to  cross  her  boundaries  allowing  an  
intersubjective  sharing  with  the  other  to  happen.      
[...]   The  counter-­argument  from  the  asymmetric  other  connotes  the  relative  positions  of  
the  interlocutors  at  that  moment  because  it  points  to  the  actor’s  limits  of  symbolic  action  
while  challenging  their  implementation.  (Simão  2004,  p.  35).      

By  continuing  to  talk  to  CM,  the  researcher  realizes  that,  contrary  to  what  he  intended  
to   demonstrate,   he   is   a   guy   who   expresses   himself   very   well   and   has   some   knowledge  
about   the   academic   life.   It   first   happens   when   he   makes   it   clear   that   he   recognizes  
how  a  survey  as  a  Masters  dissertation  may  be  relevant  to  the  circus  world,  and  then  
when  he  seems  angry  about  the  valuation  of  international  circuses  over  national  ones.    
 
The  comment  that  outsiders  imagine  that  everyone  in  the  circus  is  illiterate  and  does  
not  bathe  can  be  used  to  justify  his  resistance  to  talk  to  the  researcher  as  well  as  the  
failure  to  relate  to  people  from  this  "other  society".  This  fact  placed  by  CM  highlights  
the   tensions   that   arise   from   differences   between   the   positions   "I"   and   "other”.     He   has  
an   idea   of   how   "outsiders"   see   the   circus,   he   also   assumes   they   do   not   want   much  
contact   with   the   circus;   but   when   enabling   this   detachment,   i.e.,   by   not   allowing  
contact   with   this   "other   society,"   there   is   no   way   to   make   sure   if   his   suspicions   are  
well   founded   or   not.   Instead,   this   attitude   deprives   outsiders   of   knowing,   at   least  
slightly,  how  in  fact  the  "reality"  of  the  circus  and  of  those  who  live  there  is.  
 
We   could   say   that   this   was   the   crucial   point   for   the   research,   since   it   allowed   the  
knowledge   constructions   that   came   about.   Noticing   the   dialogue,   the   ticket   lady   not  

9  

 
  
 

only   became   available   to   take   part   in   the   research,   but   also   encouraged   other  
participants   to   do   the   same,   which   significantly   contributed   to   the   theme   of   the  
investigation.      
 
Even   though   CM   specifically   was   not   so   willing   to   be   interviewed   and   did   not  
participate,  he  was  kind  and  gentle  with  the  researcher  in  the  following  occasions  they  
have  met.  From  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  investigative  process  he  remained  in  
the   position   of   non-­‐cooperation.   Cooperation   requires   not   only   coordination   of  
interpretative  strategies  that  depend  on  both  the  speaker  and  the  listener,  but  rather  
depends  on  the  intention  to  cooperate.  
 
 [...]   speakers   and   listeners   are   not   mere   participants,   thus   in   the   process   of   conversation,  
they   act   as   active   agents   that   depend   on   their   own   inferences   as   interactive   guides   of  
conduct  to  judge  what  is  interaction.  (Gumperz,  1995,  p.  104).  

We  considered  that  if  CM  and  the  researcher  had  lived  longer  together,  it  would  have  
been  possible  to  establish  a  greater  approximation  between  them,  which  would  have  
possibly   changed   CM's   opinion   in   relation   to   his   participation   in   the   investigation,  
given   that   he   maintained   himself   close   the   entire   time   and   was   receptive   to   the  
researcher's   presence   in   her   later   visits.   On   the   other   hand,   the   existent   gaps   are  
inherent  to  the  investigative  process,  which  does  not  reach  for  a  total  apprehension  of  
the  phenomena  in  study,  but  to  construct  the  knowledge  through  possible  openings  in  
the  relationships  with  the  participants.  

We   noticed   that   in   the   I-­‐other   relation,   more   precisely   in   the   dialogue   between   the  
researcher   and   the   potential   participant,   initial   agreements   could   be   made   available  
over   the   course   of   interaction,   under   the   risk   of   rupture.   Although   temporary,   these  
agreements   allow   dialogue   to   happen.   This   is   possible   because   each   participant   of   a  
dialogue  believes  that  some  kind  of  intersubjective  sharing  is  possible  in  the  course  of  
interaction  (Rommetveit,  1994,  Guimarães  and  Simão,  2007).  
 
The   analyzed   field   research   notes   concerning   the   experience   of   the   researcher  
allowed   us   to   explore   some   general   characteristics   of   the   dialogue,   addressing   the  
necessary  constitution  of  an  affective  common  field  for  meaning  construction.  In  the  
presented  case,  the  affective  common  field  was  grounded  in  previous  experiences,  and  
addressed   the   attachments   of   the   researcher   and   the   participant   in   relation   to   the  
circus.    
 
Affective  Attachment  in  Field  Research      
 
The   selected   report   allowed   us   to   reflect   on   the   possibilities   and   limits   we   may  
encounter   as   we   speak   to   others.     In   any   dialogue   people   open   up   and   then   close  
themselves,   not   completely   but   provisionally,   in   accordance   with   the   limits   and  
restrictions  imposed  by  themselves  and  the  other.  Affectivity  has  a  prime  role  in  this  
process,   because   the   cognitive,   sign-­‐mediated   forms   of   knowledge   are   affective   in  
their  nature  (cf.  Josephs,  2000;  Valsiner,  2007).  

10  

 
  
 

 
For  Valsiner,  the  relationship  I-­‐other-­‐world  is  primarily  affectionate.  The  primary  and  
physiological  affection  strikes  from  the  semiotic  signification  of  feelings  and  emotions.  
When   we   signify   the   affections,   subjective   and   reflective   cultural-­‐semiotic  
characteristics   enter   the   picture   (Valsiner,   2012).   The   primary   affections   would,  
therefore,  be  referred  as  a  kind  of  cloudy  field  that  would  catalyse  the  proximities  and  
distances   in   the   relationships   with   others   and   with   the   world,   from   which   possible  
intersubjective  sharing  would  unfold.  
 
We  feel  in  a  certain  way  with  regard  to  somebody  or  something  or  ourselves.  Feeling  
is   a   dynamic   process   located   in   the   feeling   person,   sometimes   salient,   powerful   and  
overwhelming,  sometimes  hidden  in  the  background;  sometimes  fuzzy  and  not  easy-­‐or  
even   impossible-­‐to   verbalize,   sometimes   clearly   framed   and   categorized   within   the  
language   of   feeling   and   emotion.  This   process   can   lead   either   to   the   transformation   or  
to  the  maintenance  of  our  present  relationship  to  the  world  and  to  ourselves.  [Josephs,  
2000  p.  815].      
 
 
During   the   dialogue,   the   symbolic   elaboration   of   the   participant   acts   recursively   on  
the   affective   field   of   the   researcher,   who   is   disquieted   (i.e.   ruptured   in   his/her  
expectancies).  It  demands  a  reorganization  of  the  affective  field  through  the  creation  
of   a   new   understanding   of   what   is   happening   in   the   situation,   leading   the   participants  
to  be  affected  and  to  elaborate  it  symbolically  (cf.  Guimarães,  2010a).  In  this  sense,  a  
field  research  is  also  an  intervention  over  the  studied  reality.  
 
According   to   Josephs   “feeling   is   an   experience   rooted   in   the   person   as   a   whole.   For  
Stern,   feeling   is   related   to   the   course   of   personal   activity   in   time,   that   is,   feeling   is  
related  to  the  present,  the  past  and  the  future”  (2010  p.  822).  
 
Upon   returning   to   the   circus,   the   researcher   came   across   intense   and   contradictory  
feelings.  Being  back  to  that  world  made  her  face  memories  from  her  past  as  a  circus  
artist;  at  the  same  time,  she  had  to  deal  with  emotions  that  were  rising  at  that  moment  
in  time,  such  as  the  tension  she  faced  in  her  meeting  with  C.M.,  which  contributed  to  
her  having  higher  expectations  regarding  the  future  of  the  investigation.    
 
To   the   semiotic-­‐cultural   constructivism   in   psychology,   the   search   for   intersubjective  
sharing  is  one  of  the  most  important  ways  of  changing  in  human  development,  which  
is  understood  by  means  of  the  cultural  changes  that  are  experienced  and  internalized  
by   the   person   (Guimarães,   2010b).   Thus,   the   fragment   which   was   analyzed   made   it  
possible  for  us  to  explore  some  characteristics  of  verbal  interaction  in  which  both  met  
somehow  inserted  into  a  common  field  of  meaning  that  was  represented  in  this  case  
by   MC´s   circus   and   the   researcher´s   circus,   i.e.,   the   verbal   interaction   established  
between   them   in   a   large   scale   was   made   possible   and   permitted,   once   the   barriers  
imposed  by  CM  and  possibly  also  by  the  researcher  were  removed,  at  the  same  time  as  
emphasizing   the   symbolic   similarities   they   shared   in   some   measure,   namely   being  
both  circus  artists.  

11  

 
  
 

 
Due  to  the  lack  of  interest  of  CM  in  sharing  his  life  experiences,  it  was  necessary  for  
the   researcher   to   adopt   a   posture   that   could   build   a   relation   based   on   empathy   and  
trust.   To   make   this   possible   it   was   essential   to   show   him   the   respectful   attitude   of   the  
researcher  towards  both  the  circus  members  and  the  field  of  investigation,  just  as  it  
was  essential  to  show  him  how  important  his  role  was  in  the  research.    
 
The  originally  nebulous  experience—meeting  an  unknown  person  under  a  new  vivid  
circumstance—was   filled   with   the   common   background   of   the   researcher   and   the  
circus   member.   Her   past   experience   as   a   circus   artist   facilitated   her   approach   to  
people  in  that  cultural  field.  The  common  background  allowed  CM  to  recognize  in  the  
researcher  and  himself  a  space  where  both  were,  to  some  extent,  not  simply  equal  or  
similar,  but  rather  representatives  of  one  part  of  a  whole  that  brought  them  together.    
 
Therefore,  at  that  moment  they  were  part  of  the  “circus”  and  right  then  and  there  they  
could  be,  in  different  measures,  circus  artists.    
 
Dialogical  Multiplication  and  Field  Research      
 
The  dialogical  conception  of  the  minimal  communicative  situation  conceives  that  the  
tension   emerge   when   Alter   and   Ego   negotiate   meanings   about   a   topic   of   discussion   or  
an   object   of   social   representation   (cf.   Marková,   2006;   Cornejo,   2008).   Triadic   pictures  
or   metaphors   are   often   used   to   account   any   dialogical   process   (Moscovici,   2003;  
Marková,   2006;   Simão   and   Valsiner,   2007;   Simão,   2012),   granting  the   comprehension  
of   differences   and   tensions   around   a   specific   topic   or   social   representation   (object).  
On   the   other   hand,   this   article   presents   a   discussion   concerning   a   moment   of   the   I-­‐
other   interaction   that   is   previous   to   the   dialogue,   a   situation   preliminary   to   the  
research,   in   which   the   involved   persons   are   still   unknown   to   each   other,   that   is,   the  
participants   do   not   have   a   common   object   for   a   more   meaningful   negotiation.  
Although   there   is   a   gap   between   them,   some   approximation   can   be   constructed  
through   an   intervention   upon   the   affective-­‐nebulous   intersection   provided   by   the  
meeting.    
 
The  notion  of  dialogical  multiplication  is  a  theoretical  and  methodological  device  that  
allows  us  to  put  into  focus  precisely  the  gaps  between  Self  and  other  in  interaction  (cf.  
Guimarães,   2013).   From   this,   we   presuppose   that   there   are   different   objects   of  
reference  in  the  discourse  of  a  person  engaged  in  the  dialogue  with  otherness.  These  
symbolic   objects   are   linked   to   the   emergence   of   a   common   background   that   serves   as  
reference   for   the   dialogue—ie.,   the   research;   the   artistic,   the   friendship   or   other  
setting   for   intersubjective   sharing.   Creative   semiotic   elaborations   in   face   of   the  
experience   of   nebulous   others   and   world   are   can   be   observed   in   each   Self   that  
mutually  affects  the  other  in  a  nebulous  immanent  exchange.  
 
    By   nebulosity   I   mean   the   affective   pre-­‐semiotic   flow   of   experience   in   the  
boundary   of   the   Self,   other   and   world  (cf.   Valsiner,   2007).   On   the   other   hand,   semiotic  
constrains  are  built  and  socially  shared  in  order  to  overcome  the  disquieting  (Simão,  

12  

 
  
 

2003)  experience  emerged  from  the  nebulous  field.  These  semiotic  constructions  are  
diversely   constructed   by   different   cultural   manufacturing.   Consequently,   the  
multiplication   of   cultures   entails   a   field   of   divergences   concerning   interobjective  
constructions   of   meanings   among   members   that   share   specific   cultural   fields.   Global  
society,  for  instance,  evinces  the  existence  of  differently  shared  religiosity,  languages,  
rituals,  habits  and  maybe…  psychologies!    
    A  similar  principle  of  dialogical  multiplication  can  be  derived  to  our  reflection  
on  the  Self:  the  multiplication  of  symbolic  objects  at  the  core  of  cultural  interchanges,  
rather  than  achieving  an  equivalent  semiotic  reference,  addresses  some  limits  for  the  
integration   between   intrasubjective   and   intersubjective   plans   of   Self   experiences.  
Dissimilarities  under  same  notions  can  be  now  focused  under  a  dialogical  approach:  in  
Self–otherness   relation,   imaginative   activities   based   on   previous   culturally  
constructed   meanings   take   place   in   order   to   fill   disquieting   experiences   (Guimarães,  
2013,  p.  223).  

Therefore   we   propose   that   a   double   dialogical   representation   is   more   adequate   to  

understand  the  lived  fieldwork  experience  at  this  preliminary  moment:  
 
Suara’s  circus   CM’s  circus  
 

   

                                                                                         

                                        Nebulous  field  of  mutual  

affection.  

Past   Suara’s   CM’s   TL’s  

experiences   situation   situation   position  

     
 

 
Researcher   Member  of  the  circus  
Figure  1:  Dialogical  multiplication  as  an  illustration  of  I-­‐other  differences  in  the  preliminary  moment  of  
field  research.

 
 
The   double   dialogicality   allows   us   to   conceive   the   alterity   of   the   participant   at   the  
moment  in  which  I  and  other  are  constructing  a  common  ground  for  the  dialogue,  at  

13  

 
  
 

the   same   time   conceiving   the   centrality   of   affectivity   in   this   process:   approximation,  
avoidance,   rudeness   and   efforts   for   converging   attitudes,   play   an   arm   wrestling   in  
which  the  researcher  and  the  participant  may  be  able  to  continue  to  interact  or  decide  
to  abandon  the  dialogue.    
 
In   the   discussed   situation,   the   potential   participant   CM   kept   his   decision   of   not  
participating   until   the   end   of   the   research   process,   nevertheless,   for   the   sake   of   the  
investigation   his   acceptance   of   the   figure   of   the   researcher   created   the   necessary  
openness   for   future   interviews.   The   interest   of   the   researcher   in   the   circus   life   and   its  
previous  experience  was  decisive.  In  fact,  she  manifested  herself  as  someone  acting  in  
favor   of   circuses   interests,   affirming   that   she   “would   like   to   contribute   to   demystify  
this  idea  of  circus  artists”  and  “would  like  to  show  people  how  great  it  is  and  that  it’s  
not   like   most   of   them   think”   (cf.   p.   5   of   this   paper).   On   one   hand,   when   the   researcher  
verbalizes  her  personal  opinion  about  the  circus,  she  reassures  her  understanding  of  
the   process   of   investigation   as   an   opportunity   to   publicize   aspects   of   the   circus   life  
that   usually   are   not   well   known.   From   ethical   and   analytical   point   of   view,   this  
attitude  mean  that  she  is  aware  that  the  scientific  knowledge  has  a  particular  role  in  
the  broad  cultural  field,  acting  "over  the  socio-­‐cultural  reality  as  a  whole,  exchanging  
meanings,   producing   discourses   and   validating   conceptions"   (Guimarães,   2012).   The  
scientific   investigation   has   social   implications,   the   researcher   is   unavoidable  
positioned  and  is  co-­‐responsible  for  the  consequences  of  the  knowledge  constructed  
and  published.  
 
On  the  other  hand,  these  utterances  express  how  the  researcher  tried  to  reduce  CM’s  
avoidance   by   showing   that   in   fact   she   is   not   so   distant   or   different   from   him,   and  
more,   she   intends   to   contribute   with   the   circus   way   of   life.   Actually,   the   original  
investigative   aim—to   understand   the   circus   everyday   life—is   enlarged   at   this  
moment,   revealing   a   tacit   aim   of   the   researcher   as   she   is   identified   with   the   artist’s  
position.   That   is,   the   researcher   revealed   to   be   someone   affectively   and   cognitively  
involved  with  the  participants  of  the  research:  on  the  watch  for  the  perception  of  the  
inconvenient  aspects  of  her  presence/investigation  at  that  territory;  trying  to  find  in  
the  resistances  of  the  interlocutor  some  porosity  that  could  connect  them.    
 
The   dialogical   multiplication   was   also   a   device   to   understand   intrapsychological  
conflicts.   Observing   the   researcher   ambiguity   between   the   psychological   investigative  
position  and  artist’s  identification,  we  can  use  another  double-­‐dialogical  scheme  as  a  
device   to   understand   the   intrapsychological   tension   in   the   process   of   knowledge  
construction  in  the  field  research.  
 
Figure  2  shows  the  ambivalence  of  the  researcher  that  emerged  from  her  commitment  
with   a   defined   cultural   background.   Although   the   researchers   have   planned   the  
methodological  procedures  for  the  fieldwork,  her  past  experiences  intervene,  creating  
unreflective,  tacit,  affective  expectancies  about  what  would  be  found  in  the  territory,  
and  about  people  that  live  there.  The  commitment  with  this  cultural  field  guides  the  
quest  for  knowledge  construction  to  as  far  as  the  researcher  is  able  to  take  herself  as  
part   of   it.     The   intersubjective   experience   is   then   internalized   as   an   intrasubjective  
14  

 
  
 

tension   between   the   construction   of   the   investigative   object   and   the   non-­‐scientific  
object   of   interest   that   permeates   the   socio-­‐cultural   field   (i.e.   the   circus   artist’s  
interests).  

Investigative   Artist’s  
aims   interest  

Nebulous  field  of  mutual  

affection.  
Suara’s  situation  
Past   Suara’s   Past  
as  someone  from  
experiences   situation  as  a   experiences  
the  circus  
(formation  as  a   reseacher   (four  years  
psychologist)   living  in  the  
circus)  
 

Researcher  and  Member  of  the  circus  

Figure  2:  Dialogical  multiplication  as  an  illustration  of  I-­‐I  ambiguous  positioning  in  field  research.  

ADDITIONAL  COMMENTS    
 
Psychological   research   in   cultural   psychology   cannot   exclude   the   perspective   of   the  
researcher   in   the   process   of   knowledge   construction.   On   the   contrary,   theoretical   and  
methodological   issues   emerge   from   the   constructive   activity   of   the   researcher   in   his  
relation   to   the   world   and   to   others,   and   operate   through   the   selectivity   from   the  
analyzed   subject   and   data   (cf.   Bettoi   &   Simão,   2002;   Boesch,   2007;   Branco   &   Valsiner,  
1997;   Simão,   2007;   Valsiner,   2001).   The   hermeneutic   option   of   semiotic-­‐cultural  
constructivism   (Simão,   2005,   2010)   is   an   alternative   in   contrast   to   the   objectivist  
paradigm  in  science  (Duran,  2004).  The  researcher  has  to  account  the  genesis  and  the  
process   of   the   investigative   path,   as   it   presupposes   the   affective   involvement   of   the  

15  

 
  
 

researcher   observing   the   process   in   which   the   organization   of   the   knowledge  

construction  experience  takes  place.    
 
At   the   same   time,   in   this   process,   the   researcher’s   perspective   cannot   get   confused  
with  the  perspective  of  the  investigated  the  research  participants  —  it  was  discussed  
by   William   James   as   one   of   the   main   snares   in   which   psychologists   are   used   to  
collapse  (James,  1890).  As  there  is  no  transparency  between  the  self  and  the  other,  we  
have  to  be  aware  of  the  limits  of  our  interpretation  of  the  psychological  phenomena.  
These   limits   in   the   intersubjectivie   sharing   guides   the   emergence   of   an   unavoidable,  
and   sometimes   uncomfortable,   challenging   and   productive   feeling   in   the   researcher  
(cf.   Simão,   2011),   that   pursues   the   reduction   of   the   tensions   in   the   self-­‐other  
relationships.   Therefore,   it   implies   being   able   to   recognize   the   heterogeneous  
symbolic   trajectories   that   emerge   from   the   affective   meeting   with   the   unknown,  
previous  to  the  constitution  of  a  common  ground  for  the  dialogue.  
 
Following   this   path,   the   notion   of   dialogical   multiplication   is   becoming   a   useful   device  
for   the   description   of   meaning   construction   in   interdisciplinary,   interspecific,  
interethnic   and   intercultural   dialogues   (Guimarães,   2010b;   2011).   It   also   has   been  
used   to   understand   the   psychotherapeutic   setting,   the   therapist-­‐patient   relationship  
and   the   intrapyshcological   conflicts   that   emerge   in   the   patient   (Guimarães,   2013).  
Now   the   investigative   process   in   field   research   was   taken   into   account,   to   identify   the  
differences   that   emerge   during   the   investigative   process,   bringing   the   focus   to   some  
implicit  processes  that  take  place  in  the  quest  for  convergence  in  communication.    
 
 
REFERENCES      
 
 
Andrade,  A.  N.;  Morato,  H.  T.,  &  Schimidt,  M.  L.  S.  (2007).  Pesquisa  interventiva  em        
             Instituição:  etnografia,  cartografia  e  genealogia.  In:  Rodrigues,  M.  M.  P.  &        
             Menandro,  P.  R.  M.  (Org.).  Lógicas  metodológicas:  trajetos  de  pesquisa  em          
             psicologia,  1ed.,  Vitória:  Editora  GM.  
Bettoi,  W.,  &  Simão,  L.  M.  (2002).  Entrevistas  com  Psicólogos  como  Atividade  de                      
           Ensino-­Aprendizagem  Desejável  na  Formação  dos  Psicólogos.  Psicologia          
           Reflexão  e  Crítica,  15  (3):  613-­‐624.  
Boesch,  E.  E.  (1991).  Symbolic  action  theory  and  cultural  psychology.    
           Berlin-­‐Heidelberg:  Springer-­‐Verlag.  
Boesch,  E.  E.  (2007).  The  Seven  Flaws  of  Cross-­Cultural  Psychology:  the  story  of    
           a  conversion.  In.  Lonner,  W.  J.  and  Hayes.  S.  H.  Discovering  Cultural    
           Psychology:  a  profile  and  selected  readings  of  Ernest  E.  Boesch  (pp.  247-­‐258).    
           Charlotte:  Information  Age  Publishing.  (Trabalho  original  publicado  em  1996).  
Branco,  A.,  &  Valsiner,  J.    (1997).  Changing  methodologies:  A  co-­constructivist      
           study  of  goal  orientations  in  social  interactions.  Psychology  and  Developing  
           Societies,  9  (1),  35-­‐64.  
Cornejo,  J.  (2008).  Intersubjectivity  as  Co-­phenomenology:  From  the  Holism  of    

16  

 
  
 

           Meaning  to  the  Being-­in-­the-­world-­with-­others.  Integrative  Psychological    

           and  Behavioral  Sciences,  42:  171-­‐178.        
Duran.  A.  P.  (2004).  Relação  eu  –  outro:  uma  Paradigma  sob  a  perspective  do          
           Construtivismo  Terapêutico.  In:  Simão,  L.  M.;  Martínez,  A.  M.  (orgs.)  O  outro    
           no  desenvolvimento  humano  (PP.  131-­‐144).  São  Paulo:  Pioneira  Thomson        
           Learning.    
Gadamer,  H.  G.  (1985).  Truth  and  method  (G.  Barden  &  J.  Cumming,  Trans.).  New    
           York:  Lexington.  (Original  work  published  1959).  
Guimarães,  D.  S.,  &  Simão,  L.  M.  (2007).  Intersubjetividade  e  desejo  nas  relações      
         sociais:  O  caso  dos  jogos  de  representação  de  papéis.  Portugal:  Interacções,              
         3  (7),  30-­‐54.  
Guimarães,  D.  S.  (2010a).  Symbolic  Objects  as  Sediments  of  the  Intersubjective  
           Stream  of  Feelings.  Integrative  Psychological  &  Behavioral  Science,  v.  44  
           p.  208-­‐216.        
Guimarães,  D.  S.  (2010b).  Commentary:  The  complex  construction  of  Psychological        
           identities  in  Palestine:  Integrating  narratives  and  life  Experiences.  Culture  &                
           Psychology,  v.  16  p.  539-­‐548.  
Guimarães,  D.  S.  (2011).  Amerindian  anthropology  and  cultural  psychology:    
           Crossing  boundaries  and  meeting  otherness´s  worlds.  Culture  and  Psychology                  
           12(2):139-­‐157.  
Guimarães.  D.  S.  (2012).  Scientific  concepts  and  public  policies:  Semiotic-­cultural  
           obstacles  concerning  intergroup  and  intercultural  relationships.  Culture  and            
           Psychology  18(3):345-­‐358.  
Guimarães,  D.  S.  (2013).  Self  and  Dialogical  Multiplication.  Portugal:  Revista    
           Interacções.  
Gumperz,  J.J.  (1995).  Mutual  inferring  in  conversation.  Em:  I.  Marková,  C.  Graumann    
           e  K.  Foppa,  Mutualities  in  Dialogue,  Cambridge  University  Press,  101-­‐123.  
James,  W.  (1890).  The  principles  of  psychology.  New  York  :  Holt.  
Josephs,  I.  E.  (2000).  Feelings  as  movement  from  a  person-­centered  standpoint:  going      
         beyond  Willian  Stern.  Theory  and  Psychology.  
Lewin,  K.  (1951).  Teoria  de  campo  em  ciência  social.  São  Paulo:  Livraria  Pioneira          
           Editora.  
Marková,  I.  (2006).  Dialogicidade  e  representações  sociais:  as  dinâmicas  da    
         mente.  (Trad.  Hélio  Magri  Filho).  Petrópolis:  Vozes.  (Original  publicado  em  
         (2003).          
Moscovici,  S.  (2003).  Representações  sociais:  Investigações  em  Psicologia  Social  (Trad.        
           Pedrinho  A.  Guaschieri).  Petrópolis,  RJ:  Vozes.  (Original  publicado  em  2000).  
Moura,  C.  B.  e  Hernandez,  A.  (2012).  Cartografia  como  método  de  pesquisa  em  arte.  
           Universidade  Federal  de  Pelotas.  Rio  Grande  do  Sul.  Recuperado  de:    
           http://periodicos.ufpel.edu.br/ojs2/index.php/Arte/article/viewFile/1694/1574.  
Neiva-­‐Silva,    L.  N.,  &  Koller,  S.H.  (2002).  O  uso  da  fotografia  na  pesquisa  em          
           Psicologia.  Estudos  em  Psicologia  7  (2),  237-­‐250.  
Oliveira,  R.  C.  (1998).  O  trabalho  do  etnógrafo.  Brasília:  Editora  Paralelo.  
Rommetveit,  R.  (1994).  Outlines  of  a  dialogically  based  socio-­cognitive  approach    
           to  human  cognition  and  communication.  In  A.  H.  World  (Eds.).  The  dialogical    
           alternative:  towards  a  theory  of  language  and  mind  (pp.  10-­‐44).  Oslo:  
17  

 
  
 

           Scandinavian  University  Press.  

Simão,  L.  M.  (2002).  A  noção  de  objeto  e  a  concepção  de  sujeito  em  Boesch.  In  L.  M.    
           Simão,  M.  T.  C.  C.  de  Souza  &  N.  E.  Coelho  Junior,  Noção  de  objeto,  concepção    
         de  sujeito:  Freud,  Piaget  e  Boesch  (pp.  87-­‐96).  São  Paulo:  Casa  do  Psicólogo.  
Simão,  L.  M.  (2003).  Beside  Rupture  –  Disquiet;  Beyond  the  Other  -­  Alterity.  Culture  &          
           Psychology,  9(4),  449-­‐459.  
Simão,  L.  M.  (2004).  Alteridade  no  diálogo  e  construção  do  conhecimento.  Em:  L.    
           M.  Simão  e  A.  M.  Martinez  (Orgs.).  O  Outro  no  Desenvolvimento  Humano  –  
           Diálogos  para  a  pesquisa  e  a  prática  profissional  em  Psicologia.  São  Paulo:  
           Pioneira  Thompson  Learning,  29-­‐39.  
Simão,  L.  M.  (2005).  Bildung,  Culture  and  Self;  A  Possible  Dialogue  with  Gadamer,    
           Boesch  and  Valsiner?  [Versão  electronica].  Theory  &  Psychology,  15(4):  549-­‐      
           574.  
Simão,  L.  M.  (2007).  We  Researchers:  Unquiet  people  disquieting  others.  A      
           Commentary  on  Duarte  &  Gonçalves  “Negotiating  motherhood:  A  dialogical  
           approach”.  International  Journal  for  Dialogical  Science,  v.2,  n.  1,  277-­‐285.  
Simão,  L.  M.,  &  Valsiner,  J.  (2007)  General  Conclusions  (Editors):  Multiple  Faces  of    
         OTHERNESS  Within  the  Infinite  Labyrinths  of  the  Self.  In  Simão,  L.  M.  and  Valsiner,  
           J.  Otherness  in  Question:  Labyrinths  of  the  self  (pp.  393-­‐406).  Charlotte:        
         Information  Age  Publishing.  
Simão,  L.  M.  (2010).  Ensaios  dialógicos:  compartilhamento  e  diferença  nas    
           Relações  eu-­‐outro.  Editora  Hucietc.    
Simão,  L.  M.  (2011).  Ciência  Idiográfica,  Ciência  Cultural  [Idiographic  Science,  Cultural  
Science].  Paper  presented  at  the  7th  North-­‐Northeast  Congress  of  Psychology,  11–14  
May  2011,  Salvador,  Bahia,  Brazil  
Simão,  L.  M.  (2012).  The  Other  in  the  Self:  A  triadic  unit  (pp.  403-­‐420).  In:  Valsiner,  J.    
         (Org.).  The  Oxford  handbook  of  culture  and  psychology.  New  York:  Oxford        
         University  Press.  
Spink,  P.  (1976).  Pesquisa-­Ação  e  a  análise  de  problemas  sociais  e  organizacionais    
           complexos.  Revista  Psicologia,  v.  5,  n.  1,  pp.  31-­‐44.      
Spink,  P.  K.  (2003).  Pesquisa  de  campo  em  psicologia  social:  uma  perspectiva    
           pós-­construcionista.  Pontifícia  Universidade  Católica  de  São  Paulo.    
           Psicologia  &  Sociedade;  15  (2):  18-­‐42.          
Stern,  W.  (1938).  General  psychology  from  the  personalistic  standpoint.  New  York:          
           Macmillan.  
Taylor,  C.  (2002).  Gadamer  on  the  human  sciences.  In.  R.J.  Dostal  (Ed.),  The    
           Cambridge  Companion  to  Gadamer  (pp.  126-­‐142).  Cambridge:  Cambridge  
           University  Press.  
Valsiner,  J.  (1998).  The  guided  mind:  A  sociogenetic  approach  to  personality.    
           Cambridge,  MA:  Harvard  University  Press.  
Valsiner,  J.  (2001).  Comparative  study  of  human  cultural  development.  Madrid.    
           Fundación  Infancia  y  Aprendizage.  
Valsiner,  J.  (2007).  Culture  in  minds  and  societies.  Los  Angeles:  Sage    
         Publications.  
Valsiner, J. (2012). Fundamentos da Psicologia Cultural: mundos da mente, mundos da
vida. Porto Alegre: Artmed.  
18  

 
  
 

Zittoun, T. (2006). Transitions: Development Through Symbolic Resources. Greenwich:

Information Age Publishing.  
 
 
 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This  work  was  supported  by  the  Coordination  for  the  Improvement  of  Higher  
Education  Personnel  (CAPES),  Brazil.  

AUTHORS  BIOGRAPHIES:  

Suara   Bastos  is  currently  a  PhD  student  at  the  Institute  of  Psychology  (University  of  
São   Paulo,   São   Paulo,   Brazil).   Her   current   research   addresses   conflicts   and   tensions  
emerging  from  conviviality  in  the  circus,  aiming  to  understand  possible  psychosocial  
vulnerabilities   and   identify   the   ways   inhabitants   of   the   circus   elaborate   conflicts  
emerging   from   the   itinerancy   and   intense   conviviality   of   the   social   group.   Email:    
suara@usp.br/suarabastos@uol.com.br    

Danilo   Silva   Guimarães,  PhD,  is  Professor  at  the  Institute  of  Psychology  (University  of  
São   Paulo,   São   Paulo,   Brazil).   He   has   been   working   with   analysis   of   Self–otherness  
interactions   from   a   dialogical   semiotic–cultural   perspective   in   psychology.   His   main  
focus   of   investigation   is   the   process   of   symbolic   elaborations   out   of   tensional  
boundaries  between  cultural  identities  and  alterities.  Email:  danilosg@usp.br    

19