Some interesting results have been obtained which challenge the
normal approaches to both food and government.
I think the results are well established by the techniques and
toolbox I have used, and the techniques are well founded on theoretical
and academic foundations.
The triangulation process has validated the results, but also raised
questions because of the different perspectives implicit in triangulation
One inevitable challenge of dealing with discourse is the issue
- There is a 'great milling mass' of discourse, and all discourses
are knotted together in this. The Government has selected the
most important discourses (from their perspective) from this milling
mass for inclusion in their aims and objectives.
- They have then formulated the discourses into "aims and
- I have selected the discourse and text analysis techniques that
I have used
- I have then selected which techniques to use on which particular
aims and objectives
- I have then composed this into an authorial discourse.
This is the nature of all communication, except it is usually implicit
and unformulated. My defence against any possible criticism is that:-
- I have taken care to extract techniques which have sound theoretical
- I have tried to use triangulation and a multi-disciplinary approach
to validate my results
- In any case, in the light of my ideas about the dispositive,
I have tried not to be definitive in my statements, but to use
hypothesis and questioning as my methods of investigation.
Overall, I think my results are valid and realistic, and raise
worthwhile questions about the nature of Government and about food
and food production in our society.