We can see that the frequency of the elements in the notes does not necessarily correspond to their frequency in the actual models: beware, the most common note element is only considered the third most common element in a sample, it is preceded in frequency by standard and consistent concordance. These frequency data give us an insight into the nature of recorded conversations: there were many moments of attention, as a natural component of a dialogue, but the fact that there were more moments of disagreement (by default) than the agreement also suggests that the interaction was fairly free. The small number of rejection objects, axis increases of doubts and surprise hands suggest that the interaction does not contain much direct confrontation. Another set of observations to determine the degree of agreement showed that there were 2331 cases of the uninteresting element – another reflection of the interlocutor on a moment of interaction. Its relatively low frequency shows once again that the actors were properly involved in the dialogues. Finally, after several other sequences similar to the previous one, this episode is triggered in a farmer`s expression of frustration due to the overall situation and difficulties in understanding and controlling the impact of cranes on agriculture. It is interesting to note that the order that leads to this expression of frustration is initiated by another farmer, who asks another question, another assistant to disagreements: a few minutes later, at the same meeting, a farmer asked another question that could cause a disagreement. But again, before clarifying differences or similarities in perspectives, another question is asked. Moreover, this second question has the potential to initiate a debate on differences or similarities in perspectives, but as it is placed in order, it instead leads to interrupting the already open investigation into the differences and similarities in the outlook. In reading the transcript, we looked for sequences that were marked by differences of opinion and which, through sequential analyses, identified different ways in which disagreements are initiated and addressed in the conversation. We used a definition of differences of opinion that focuses on differences of opinion after the third round.
This relates to situations in which an interlocutor makes a claim or proposal, which is refuted by a statement from another interlocutor, and where the first speaker maintains or defends the original claim (McKinlay and McVittie, 2006). However, we did not limit ourselves to disagreements after the third round, but we also analyzed sequences with more subtle markers for disagreements. Often, the word “dialogue” is used by both analysts and practitioners of environmental and resource management to describe the normalization of social processes to facilitate constructibility in environmental conflicts (Carpenter and Kennedy, 1988; Forester and Theckethil, 2009; Muro and Jeffrey, 2012; Mérald et al., 2015).