Abstract

Upshot: Furthering the commentators’ input, we seek to clarify the reasons that fueled some of our decisions when constructing the analytical framework introduced in the target article. We reassert our case of pursuing a pluralistic and dialogic constructivism. In particular we discuss the proposal of axes and tensions, such as knowledge/reality and individual/society. Finally, we discuss some of the alternative proposals suggested by the commentators, which are mainly based on what the constructivist research programs have in common.