Studying Dialogue – Some Reflections

In providing a platform for intellectually rigorous engagement with dialogue, undertaken from starting points in a wide range of academic disciplines and in relation to a wide variety of contexts, the Journal of Dialogue Studies presents editions that seek to focus on particular aspects of dialogue and its conduct. Bearing in mind a phrase from the journal’s overall working proposition that at the heart of dialogue is a ‘meaningful interaction and exchange between people’, because of its involvement with people, dialogue almost inevitably entails ethical dimensions. Therefore this edition of the journal seeks to open up and critically explore some of the ethical dimensions of dialogue, from various disciplinary perspectives and with reference to various contexts. In addressing this, contributions are made by writers with backgrounds in various national contexts including Israel, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

Faculty of Education Working Paper Series, 2018

This Working Paper showcases the work of the Cambridge Educational Dialogue Research (CEDiR) group. We do this by presenting the paper in its dialogue form, in order to illustrate the very processes that we research. In all, this work was authored by a group of 22 staff and doctoral students. It is intended to be read and used by anybody with an interest in the role of dialogue in education. This may include teachers, school leaders, researchers and others beyond academia. We have tried to write it in an accessible style and the structure is flexible. As a whole, the paper is quite long. The idea is that readers can ‘dip in’ and return to the sections they find interesting in any order. See the contents page for the location of the verbatim extracts of dialogue as well as the methodology, analysis and critical discussion.

The historical backgrounds for the current analysis of talk in its social context are as diverse as the actual orientations in this approach to discourse. Although sociology and anthropology may be the overall disciplinary location for these backgrounds, the differentiation in theoretical, methodological, and philosophical labels used to identify these orientations suggests that the influences have been multiple. Phenomenology, qualitative and cognitive sociology, microsociology, ethnomethodology, symbolic interactionism, the sociology of everyday life, formal sociology, and the ethnography of speaking have been the inscriptions on the signposts that have guided the various developments leading to a common interest in the study of natural discourse. Obviously this introduction can neither sketch the full history of such antecedents nor disentangle the complexity and variety of its present-day offspring. Rather, we must try to describe the more general features of this work and sketch the outlines of a framework for the chapters that appear in this volume. These few introductory pages only allow mention of some central concepts and principies of research. How the analysis of dialogue actually works is shown by the chapters in this volume and by the many referentes to past and current work in the field of conversational and dialogical analysis.

2018

Dialectics and a dialogical approach constitute two distinct theoretical frameworks with long intellectual histories. The question of relations between dialogue and dialectics provokes discussions in academic communities. The present paper highlights the need to clarify the concepts 'dialogue' and 'dialectics' and explore their origins in the history of human thought. The paper attempts to examine mutual relations between dialectics and dialogue in a historical perspective and develop a theoretical reconstruction of their philosophical underpinnings. It proposes to deal with challenges connected with the creation of spaces for sharing and mutual enrichment between dialogue and dialectics.

Dvorkin I. Philosophy of Dialogue: a historical and systematic introduction. // Judaica Petropolitana. № 13. (2020), pp. 6-24.

The question about the philosophy of dialogue can be answered in three complementary senses: historical, systematic, and applied. The philosophy of dialogue arose in the 1920s in Germany and Russia. The works of Rosenzweig, Buber, Ebner, Bakhtin should be mentioned as the most important works introducing the philosophy of dialogue as a special line of thought. However, dialogical ideas have been expressed before. We consider the works of Hermann Cohen written in 1902–1918 to be a particularly important source of the philosophy of dialogue. Later, the philosophy of dialogue was significantly developed in the works of E. Levinas in France and V. Bibler in the Soviet Union. This philosophical current was studied and developed by scholars and thinkers in Germany, Israel, USA, Russia and other countries. In a systematic sense, the philosophy of dialogue can be viewed as a kind of “first philosophy” that interprets reality as a dialogue of persons. The philosophy of dialogue deals with first, second and third persons singular, and first person plural and their relationships. Reality is understood as a dynamic process of interpersonal relationships. Speech and language are interpreted not as a way of formulating thoughts, but as a fundamental carrier of interpersonal relations. The philosophy of dialogue is formulated by its creators as a language, speech or grammatical philosophy. Since reality is interpreted in it as an interpersonal process, the philosophy of dialogue ives rise to original understanding of the nature of space, time, causality, biological, mental and social life. The philosophy of dialogue removes the contradiction between the humanities and natural sciences; it also forms new methods of historical research. Considering the interpersonal process fundamental, the philosophy of dialogue becomes an important foundation of edagogy both in theoretical and practical dimensions.

Philosophy and Rhetoric, 2006

Research in the analysis of discourse as such dates from the 1960s. Studying texts is, however, a much earlier practice. At fi rst, the analysts of discourse were mainly concerned with corpuses that had not been studied previously: familiar conversations, mediated discourses, utterances linked to administrative, political, legal institutions, and so forth. They have thus allowed the traditional modes of analyzing philosophical, religious, or literary texts to endure. Still, I fi nd it necessary to use the concepts and methods of discourse analysis with these corpuses as well; this is what I have been trying to do with philosophical dialogue since the 1980s by developing concepts adapted to this type of discourse (Cossutta 1998-2001) and applying them to the works of philosophers, in a methodological context bearing most especially upon the theories of linguistic enunciation (Benveniste 1966; Culioli 1990). In this article, I shall consider the problem set by dialogue in philosophical discourse. Research on conversations is probably the most developed area of study, and I would like to show that the representation of the verbal interactions takes place within a very different framework when it comes to philosophical texts: not only because, like in theater, the texts are produced by an author (and are not real interactions), but also because the "self-constituting" character of philosophy decisively shapes the use of this genre.

Online International Interdisciplinary Research Journal, ISSN2249-9598, 2013

The present paper is an attempt to further the discussion initiated by Saraswati Haider(1998)on Dialogue as method for collection of ‘authentic’ data in social studies. In this attempt, the paper derives its theoretical framework from Martin Buber’s conceptualization of Dialogue as an ‘I-Thou’ encounter with the ‘other’ and attempts to search for the possibilities of ‘dialogue as method’. After a brief discussion of Buber’s understanding of Dialogue, the possibility of dialogue being more than a method has been explored. Further, an exploration of the relation between the self and the ‘other’ can be understood in dialogue and the involvement of the whole being in such a relation has been done. This is followed by a discussion of the concern about ethical in dialogue and the possibility of writing dialogically.

Journal of Dialogue Studies Volume 2 Number 1, 2014

Multidisciplinary academic journal exploring the theory and practice of dialogue

Journal of Dialogue Studies, 2013

The Journal of Dialogue Studies aims to provide a platform for intellectually rigorous engagement with dialogue from a wide range of academic disciplines, and in relation to dialogue as conducted in a wide variety of contexts. This issue of the journal has a particular emphasis on some of the contexts of dialogue. This begins with Geoffrey Klempner’s paper on “Philosophy, Ethics and Dialogue”. This may at first appear an unusual paper to open with as it seems to be less contextualised than the others in this edition of the journal. But Klempner roots his broader discussion and critique of the relationship between philosophy, ethics and dialogue by drawing on his 20 years of experience with students taking courses with Pathways to Philosophy, including one who was a prisoner on Death Row in Texas, in the USA. From this experience and the engagement of it with wider theoretical discussions concerning ethics and dialogue, Klempner concludes that learning how to conduct ethical dialogue is somewhat similar to learning how to dance, in that it cannot be taught and learned from a book: one can only learn ethical dialogue by actually and contextually engaging in ethical dialogue. Andrew Orton’s paper on “The Ethical Dimensions of Dialogue Between Policymakers: Learning Through Interaction Over Migrant Integration Dilemmas” includes a contextual reference to locality: in this instance the dilemmas faced in relation to the integration of migrants within particular localities in different national contexts. But the focus of the paper is on dialogue around these challenges when policymakers from different countries engage with each other, and how such dialogue can contribute towards the generation of shared learning that can improve local outcomes. This includes particular attention to the importance of the ethical dimensions of such dialogues. Simon Robinson’s paper “Integrity and Dialogue” uses a methodical, clear structure to set out traditional definitions of integrity, into which he weaves conceptions of dialogue. This highlights the challenges of having such fixed perceptions of integrity when examined alongside the diverse and socially engaged field of dialogue. By using both the Mid Staffs Hospital Trust case and Shakespeare’s Henry V as examples, Robinson provides a springboard from which he can scrutinise both theoretical and practical applications (and failures) of the integrity-dialogue relationship. The author succeeds in coalescing old and new, fictitious and real sources in dialogue to illustrate that such pluralist discourse should be approached with a view to encompass multitudinous perspectives, not to reinforcing rigid definitions. As with Orton’s paper on “The Ethical Dimensions of Dialogue”, Ronald C. Arnett’s paper on “Civic Dialogue: Attending to Locality and Recovering Monologue” also integrates a contextual reference to locality. It does so through exploring the broader thematic of “civic dialogue” that focuses within such dialogue on the importance of locality and also the importance of what the author, in a word that might initially challenge the reader of a paper about “dialogue”, calls “monologue”. By the latter, he means not a style of communication but the substance of particularity that is brought to a dialogical process, and without which there can be no dialogue. In illustrating this he refers to Scottish Enlightenment and draws upon Adam Ferguson’s historical work on civil society. Abraham Rudnick, Priya Subramanian, Hazel Meredith and Juna Lea Cizman’s paper on “Involving Disadvantaged People in Dialogue: Arguments and Examples from Mental Health Care” unpacks some of the issues involved in a context for dialogue that involves significant imbalances of power by reference to this particular group of disadvantaged people, in relation to whom issues of informed choice and participation can be posed in quite acute ways. The paper does this via discussion of two clinical scenarios that seek to highlight differences in clinical and personal recovery outcomes when informed by the presence or absence of dialogue within mental health care. Abdoulaye Gaye paper on “ ‘Stir It Up’: Contestation and the Dialogue in the Artistic Practice of the Twin of Twins” focuses on the context of Jamaican dancehalls and what is widely acknowledged to be their embodiment of a “resistance culture”. This includes aspects of the local versus the global; of culture versus slackness; of uptown versus downtown; and of popular culture versus high culture. Within this context of a “live” cultural environment and, by connecting it with wider theoretical understandings, the paper illustrates the dialectical relationship between the discourses of the dominant and dominated classes in relation to the artistic practice of the Twin of Twins DJs. In addition to its normal peer reviewed academic papers, this issue of the journal is also the first also to include a new section of pieces that provide a platform for preliminary reflection on dialogical practice of a kind in which the provisionality of the contributions is acknowledged and dialogical engagement is invited from the readers. The editorial team will keep this new feature under review, but for the moment have decided that this offers an additional dimension to what the journal is able to offer and achieve. This edition of the journal therefore includes Turan Kayaoglu’s piece on “Dialogue 2.0: A Call for Interfaith Service and Action”. It elaborates on a paper he delivered at the United Nations Human Rights Council, Geneva, and focuses on the debates surrounding the successful promotion of religious tolerance. Drawing together this experience, Kayaoglu emphasises the unity between member states on the necessity for intercultural dialogue, and offers his own solution for dispelling religious intolerance. Also included is Fred Dallmayr’s piece on “Reflection on Dialogue” which comes out of his experience as Co-Chair of the World Public Forum “Dialogue of Civilizations”, on the basis of which he addresses aspects of the historical, cultural and intellectual background of dialogue; the role of dialogue today in the context of “globalization”; and the purpose and meaning of dialogue. As usual, the journal concludes with reviews of two new publications relevant to the journal’s focus. In the spirit of that which the journal seeks also to study, we welcome dialogical feedback from our readers on the continuing development of the journal.

Dialogues in Human Geography

In this article, we explore the nature, value, and challenges of dialogue both within and outside the academy. After considering the possibilities and limits to dialogue, we divide our analysis into three sections, first discussing dialogue as a form of embodied action, next examining dialogue as a means of enacting a critically affirmative politics, and finally exploring the challenges of engaging in dialogue as a way of practicing public geographies. In each case, we raise a number of questions concerning the potential of, and limitations to, dialogue in an age of increasing social tensions and political divides. We conclude by suggesting that although there are times when dialogical disengagement is warranted if the conditions of possibility for meaningful dialogue are unfulfilled, scholarly dialogue continues to play an important role in fostering spaces of mutual engagement in a polarized age.

The study of dialogue is a way to open several intellectual arenas for investigation while at the same time offering insights into multiple scenes of practical yet culturally diverse human practices. This article reviews several such arenas including studies of dialogue as a culturally distinctive form of communication, dialogue as an approach to understanding social practices, dialogic ethics and also dialogue as an integrative view of not only cultural practice but also natural environments. Throughout, dialogue studies are cast as a broad field with distinct disciplines within it, as holding deep value for understanding diversity in peoples’ practices, as a potential aid in helping diverse peoples coordinate their efforts together through policies, government actions, and other institutions, and as a way of monitoring not only interactions among people but also their ecological environments. In the end, the promise of dialogue studies must proceed cautiously and humbly with the assumption that human endeavors are always limited to particular peoples and places. And move onward we will, dialogically informed.

Generally speaking, Gee offers a vision of a world where people want to understand each other and make their socio-cultural frameworks explicit. In other words, a world where exchange, negotiation, deliberation, dialogue, and compromise would be desirable and achievable. Such an imaginary presupposes, I believe, contexts where power relations would also be made explicit and hence, ‘true’ learning would become possible. However, Gee does not discuss power relations and structural conditions and constraints in any detail. Gee offers us an interesting example of learning and claims that goodwill is necessary to engage in critical discussion. Goodwill would imply the willingness to compromise and to challenge one’s own belief systems. However, structural constraints and power relations also have to be considered.

IntechOpen eBooks, 2023

In the educational environment, dialogue should be understood as an inseparable tool in an individual's contact with the academic environment. The dialogue will be used in an educational environment where we are thinking about-the functional development and growth of an individual, where the goal is not just to pass framed levels. The dialogue in both the educational and the life environment encounters a strict mechanism-programs and services based on evidence. The dialogue opens the space for a common third, through which it is possible to provide an original, truly personalised service. The very uniqueness of the human being is a symbol that represents value for the paradigm of inclusion and with which it works. Dialogue and inclusion are intertwined and connected in educational ideas. At the same time the dialogue provides a solution to the issue of introducing inclusion.