Dialogic Inquiry

Conceptual Overview and Discussion

According to Bakhtin, all human consciousness and experiences come into cognition through language, or language-in-use. Language-in-use refers to complex systems of language (including texts, artifacts, speech, gestures, conversations, socially accepted actions, customs, etc.) that produce, inform, and are continually informed by knowledge of self, other, society, culture, and so forth. Language-in-use can also be described as discourse.

Bakhtin claims that discourse is not neutral, but rather (over) populated with the intentions, histories, beliefs, and so forth, of others. Consequently, discourse is seen as socially constructed, situated, and continually informed by past and present contexts. Discourse is perceived as potentially transformative and replete with tensions as one negotiates multiple perspectives. As such, individuals are understood to be dynamic and evolving entities, potentially affected and changed by discourse, and possess the potential to affect change for another. Bakhtin refers to this as ideologically becoming.

Bakhtin defines two types of discourse: (1) authoritative discourse and (2) internally persuasive discourse. Authoritative discourse can be viewed as discourse that carries unquestionable authority and power and is taken as given without critique or question. In contrast, internally persuasive discourse is discourse that is one's own and is reflective of autonomous thought. Human consciousness, according to Bakhtin, is a continuous negotiation of tensions between authoritative and internally persuasive discourse.

More recent conceptualizations of dialogic inquiry have been taken up by others, such as Gordon Wells. Wells, building on Bakhtin's conceptualization of dialogism, proposes the dialogic inquiry approach to learning and knowledge construction. This model emphasizes (a) the role of experience in shaping learning; (b) the role of internalization of external stimuli; (c) the active construction of knowledge through a meaningful appropriation and perhaps modification and improvement of external stimuli; and (d) over time, achieving an understanding of stimuli such that the knowledge becomes integrated into the individual's experiences. The approach is iterative.

When approaching case studies from a dialogic inquiry approach, Bakhtin's theoretical view of discourse shapes and precedes methodology. As a result, significant consideration needs to be given to the ways in which data are collected and subsequently analyzed. Careful attention to language; context; culture; and sociopolitical, socioeconomic, and historical perspective is required to develop cases for analysis. A continuous iterative evaluation of the results is necessary to establish the ways in which discourse shapes and reshapes individuals both internally and relationally.

The complexities associated with characterizing authoritative and internally persuasive discourses should not be underestimated. As Bakhtin explains, often discourses are simultaneously authoritative and internally persuasive, and clear distinctions may not be readily evident without perhaps some cross-analysis of multiple data sources. Cases are analyzed from the stance of interrogating multiple-voiced perspectives and the ways in which those perspectives are potentially internalized. Case studies emerging from a dialogic perspective often offer competing alternative perspectives of phenomena.

...