Dialogue

The dialogic approach to communication goes back to the Socratic notion of dialogue (or dialectic) as a philosophical tool for uncovering truth and discovering knowledge. Modern treatments of dialogue have described it as an interpersonal conversational technique based on respect and trust, and as an approach, or orientation, toward others.

Dozens of features of dialogue have been identified by scholars and professionals. The five basic tenets of dialogue include risk (a willingness to interact with others and to be changed), trust (fairness and openness), proximity (spontaneous, honest, face-to-face contact), empathy (support-iveness), mutuality (a recognition of shared goals and interests), and commitment (to ethical conversation). As Rob Anderson, Kenneth Cissna, and Ronald Arnett (1994) explained, “Dialogue is a dimension of communication quality that keeps communicators more focused on mutuality and relationship than on self-interest, more concerned with discovering than disclosing, more interested in access than in domination” (p. 2).

Public relations professionals have been interested in using dialogue as a public relations tool for decades (cf. Pearson, 1989). Dozens of studies have examined dialogue as part of web pages, social media, relationship building, and stakeholder communication. Dozens of studies of dialogue have also found that organizations’ use of dialogue is limited, and that most professional communicators need more training in order to enact dialogue more effectively.

Dialogue is an ethical process or orientation toward others that tries to avoid treating people instrumentally or letting the more powerful take advantage of the less powerful. Dialogue is a complex communicative skill like public speaking or interpersonal communication, not simply a sharing of information. Posting information to social media websites like Twitter or Facebook is not an example of dialogue. “Talk” does not equal dialogue.

Each dialogic concept is integral to achieving an “ethical” conversation. For example, when individuals or groups with divergent beliefs are interacting, each party must be able to trust that the other party will not exploit them. An activist who agrees to meet with an organizational representative must be able to trust that the organization is not simply trying to distract the group while it secretly lobbies Congress or takes some other action. Without trust, authentic, mutually oriented communication cannot occur. Dialogic interlocutors must be willing to risk, taking a chance that the other party will be honest and forthright.

Authentic dialogue is said to require spontaneous, face-to-face, interpersonal interaction. Both [Page 258]parties must be committed to the process of dialogue, or conversation, and both parties must be able to interact in real time, and in a face-to-face fashion. Most mediated communication, including social media, are therefore excluded from any dialogic process, unless special processes are created for interaction. Dialogue typically requires two or a few people to be in the same room or interacting in a shared space.

True dialogue is not achieved through sporadic or infrequent interactions. Trust and empathetic understanding are built over time, through repeated conversations and the pursuit of mutually beneficial goals. True dialogue requires commitment to the conversational process.

Dialogue has been studied by an assortment of scholars from diverse fields of study including communication, philosophy, political science, and psychology. As Carl Rogers suggested of his dialogic approach to therapy, dialogue is about “unconditional positive regard” for the other. In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Paolo Freire (1994) suggested, “Dialogue cannot exist without humility…. How can I dialogue if I am closed to—and even offended by—the contribution of others?” (pp. 71–72). And Michael Kent and Maureen Taylor (1998) conceived of dialogue as a public relations tool, with dialogic communication referring to the negotiated exchange of ideas and opinions.

...