Knowledge
Close-Up
News
Our
Team
Menu
Spanish
 

The Dialogic Approach
Source: Democratic Dialogue Handbook (to be published)

Regardless of the situation from which one steps into the practitioner role, the essence of this work is to cultivate a broadly-shared sense of ownership in the dialogue initiative and its outcomes. This means bringing people on board, making them feel included, and encouraging them to participate actively in the process. This is where the dialogic approach takes on practical importance.

[. . .] the dialogic approach is a concept that captures the collective wisdom of experienced practitioners about how one should go about the work of initiating, promoting, organizing, and facilitating dialogue processes. It is a kind of code of conduct derived from the core principles that define true dialogue processes. Box 1.1 suggests the logical steps by which one can move from the principles to a set of guidelines for behavior.

Box 1.1: The Dialogic Approach
Core Principles
Goals
Qualities
Behaviors
  • Inclusiveness
  • Empowerment
  • Learning
  • Humanity
  • Long-term perspective
  • Engage all
    parts of the system
  • Create the conditions for change on issues of importance
  • Foster learning; facilitate deeper understanding
  • Create the
    sense of safety required for openness
  • Foster commitment
    to achieving sustainable change
  • Respectfulness
  • Transparency
  • Openness
  • Empathy
  • Authenticity
  • Patience
  • Flexibility
  • Inquire to learn
  • Share what you
    know
  • Listen empathetically
  • Reflect back what
    you are hearing
  • Explore underlying assumptions—yours and those of others
  • Acknowledge emotions as well as ideas and opinions
  • Adjust course to
    reflect new
    knowledge or understanding

Of course, different practitioners may use different language to capture what they think are the critical aspects of effective dialogue work, or they may emphasize some behaviors as particularly important. Nevertheless, there is broad agreement that there should be consistency between one’s own behavior and what one advocates as proper behavior for dialogue participants. This is what practitioners mean when they suggest that dialogue should not be practiced simply as a tool or strategy to achieve particular results, but as a basic modus operandi that expresses a particular philosophy. In Meenakshi Gopinath’s words, this is a matter of “ethical perspective.” And it is also an effective way to establish conditions favorable to a successful dialogue process. Here are three rules of thumb to support the practice of the dialogic approach:

1. Inquiry is a practitioner’s most valuable tool. In the hundreds of conversations to be conducted to bring about a dialogue, adopting the stance of an inquirer rather than that of an advocate will go a long way toward establishing the open quality of relationships that is conducive to dialogue. Being curious about people, listening to their stories, and showing empathy are ways of connecting to them as human beings and treating them with respect. This means asking questions not just to gather information but to understand and learn from others. The practitioner’s role is to pull people into the dialogue, not push a dialogue on them. Drawing them out on what issues they see are important, and on their aspirations, is a way to build support for working together to address those issues.

Words of wisdom from
practitioners . . . on the
power of inquiry:

“I have a professor whom I greatly respect, who says that what’s important is not the answers – what’s important is the questions, because they are the triggers of learning.”  

“If we’re in a situation where none of the pre-existing ideas are adequate, where we need to find something particular and new in this situation, then the capacity to listen and enable something new to come forward is not an incidental matter but the central challenge.”

From “UNDP RBLAC Regional Project, Report on Second Learning  Workshop.” 

2. Transparency is essential for building and maintaining trust. Acting with transparency as an individual means sharing relevant information; acknowledging athea issues aat astake aand athe

problems that arise, even when they are difficult, sensitive, or embarrassing; and bringing forward one’s true thoughts and feelings when they are called for in a conversation. This kind of behavior by dialogue practitioners establishes a basis for people to trust them, and through them to trust the process leading to a dialogue. This kind of trust is needed to build an inclusive dialogue, which by definition must draw in people from different sides of political, socio-economic, cultural, religious, and ethnic divides. Working across these divisions and mitigating the power imbalances typically associated with them are some of the greatest challenges in dialogue work. How the practitioner conducts herself or himself as an individual or as part of a team of course will not, in and of itself, address these difficult challenges. Yet, if people experience that practitioner as dealing with them openly and authentically, he or she can become a more effective agent in moving the whole system toward addressing them.

3. Self-reflection holds the key to openness and flexibility. Genuine learning entails being open to new ideas and perspectives, and this often requires acknowledging and letting go of assumptions and preconceptions, at least temporarily. To let go of them, however, one needs to be aware of them, and that entails self-reflection. Similarly, to be transparent and flexible about the agenda one brings to a conversation, one needs to be aware of it in the first place. Modeling self awareness, openness, and flexibility may be one of the most powerful steps a practitioner can take to advance the dialogue process. Taking different perspectives into account as one moves forward establishes a foundation of collective thinking on which trust and ownership can be built.

As one sets out to practice the dialogic approach, it may be helpful to acknowledge up front how difficult it can be: how easily one can slip from inquiry into advocacy when challenged by people who see things very differently; how hard it is to be transparent in the midst of sensitive, often complicated, interactions; how readily one can become reactive and lose perspective on his or her own underlying assumptions or agenda. Yet, as will be clear in the following chapters, practicing this approach as well as possible is vital to achieving success in the core task of building people’s trust in and commitment to the dialogue process. Whether one’s strength lies primarily in technical process expertise or in political wisdom and skill, the capacity to operate dialogically is an essential one to develop in order to do this work.