Search results

This chapter focuses on one particular practice that came to the forefront in over a dozen teacher education sessions with government schoolteachers in southern India- the reflective practice “Dialogic Modeling.” This chapter delves into two primary facets of dialogic modeling: how it operates and how it fosters opportunities to study the practices being modeled. To help supporters’ and critics’ reading, this chapter examines the form of several episodes of dialogic modeling. By form, the author refers to terms such as logic, structure, and conditions. This form and function analytic is critical to recognizing the mechanics of the practice, and provides an understanding of how a reflective dialogic practice can operate. The chapter also takes up why this form matters for how teachers learn to do their work, and how doing the work of teaching can be bolstered through reflective practice. By doing so, the chapter aims to provide additional warrants for the claims that teacher education can, and likely should, involve teacher-learners in the deliberate study of principled practices. Moreover, the author argues that modeling as it is commonly done leaves much to chance and squanders the opportunity to learn and build teachers’ capacities.

Extending the argument made in Bushe and Marshak (2009) of the emergence of a new species of Organization Development (OD) that we label Dialogic, to differentiate it from the foundational Diagnostic form, we argue that how any OD method is used in practice will be depend on the mindset of the practitioner. Six variants of Dialogic OD practice are reviewed and compared to aid in identification of a Weberian ideal-type Dialogic Mindset, consisting of eight premises that distinguish it from the foundational Diagnostic Mindset. Three core change processes that underlie all successful Dialogic OD processes are proposed, and suggestions for future research offered.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how participatory budgeting (PB), as a form of dialogic accounting, is produced in practice.

This is a qualitative case study of PB development for the period 2013-2016 in one Russian municipality. Based on triangulation of in-depth semi-structured interviews, documentary analysis, videotape data and netnographic observation, the authors employ ideas of dialogic accounting and institutional work.

The study shows that the PB experiment, which began with dialogic rhetoric, in reality, had very limited dialogic effects. However, the authors also observed that the PB dynamics over time made the practice neither inherently monologic nor dialogic. The authors explained such transformations by the way in which the individual reflexivity of actors altered when carrying out institutional work. Curiosity reflexivity was the most essential, triggering different patterns of institutional work to set up the PB experiment. However, further, the authors demonstrated that, over the course of the experiment’s development, the institutional work was trapped by various actors’ individual reflexivity forms and in this way limited PB’s dialogic potential.

The study shows the importance of understanding and managing individuals’ reflexivity, as it shapes the institutional work performed by different actors and, therefore, influences the direction of both the design and materialization of dialogic accounting experiments such as PB. In a broader sense, this also influences the way in which democratic governance is developed, losing democratization potential.

This chapter explores recent shifts from diagnostic to more dialogic, relational, and emergent OD practices and poses the question: How is diversity and inclusion integral to Dialogic OD and how do Dialogic OD practices support the goals of diversity and inclusion? Dialogic OD practices turn our attention to the deeply embedded patterns that we may otherwise take for granted, foster a readiness to disrupt these patterns, and enable a shift to alternative and perhaps more inclusive narratives. My focus is on how the dialogic and communication perspectives address systemic forces that maintain undesirable prevailing narratives and build the capacity to create more inclusive communities.

Dialogic peer coaching as leadership can enable teachers to influence each other's professional learning. The purpose of this paper is to shift the emphasis from the role associated with the designated title of leader to the purpose and relevance of teacher leadership in the context of dialogic peer coaching.

The research was undertaken as a small qualitative case study embedded in a school-based, teacher professional development project. Nine groups of peer coaches from five unrelated schools engaged in a formal process of collaborative inquiry over two years. Interview data from 13 volunteer teacher participants were analysed using the constant comparison method and themes determined.

The study revealed that there was growth in teacher leadership capabilities as they become dialogic peer coaches to each other.

Through their collaborative peer coaching dialogue teachers have the transformative space to articulate their thinking. They can engage in dialogic feedback where they are positioned as experts in their own practice.

The teachers in this study are positioned within communities of practice as co-constructers of knowledge and co-learners. On the basis of the findings the authors suggest that this can support the development of high capacity leadership in schools. This stance contrasts with a technicist approach to teacher professional learning in which teachers are situated as absorbers or recipients of knowledge constructed elsewhere.

The research reported in this paper addresses three key elements of leadership: individual development; collaboration or team development; and organisational development. It outlines a means by which teacher leadership can be strengthened to address these elements in schools.

The purpose of this paper is to present an approach to group coaching in the workplace that can enhance shared learning in groups and teams through dialogue as opposed to group members’ individual positioning through discussion and debate.

An action research project conducted throughout one year in collaboration between the management groups of the Elderly Care in a Danish municipality, two organizational consultants and two researchers from the Department of Communication and Psychology at Aalborg University. The dialogical approach to group coaching is developed in the interaction between dialogue theory and the performance and close analysis of 12 video-taped coaching sessions with four management groups. The development of the dialogic group coaching concept is further supported through common reflections between researchers and groups in initial meetings as well as during the coaching sessions and final interviews, reflections between researchers and groups in initial meetings as well as during the coaching sessions and final interviews.

The non-directive approach of dialogic group coaching is inspired by Transformative Mediation. This approach includes a focus on empowerment and recognition within the group in terms of promoting common reflection and learning. This also appears to diminish conflict talk and conflict-based relationships. Further, the dialogic approach emphasizes the importance of a coaching contract to create a common basis for reflection and action, which is found to reduce individual positioning.

The paper develops a dialogic concept of group coaching in theory and practice, while focusing on the learning processes and development of the participating management groups.

The purpose of this paper is to report on one UK secondary school English teacher and use his practice as a vehicle for exploring the classroom realities of dialogic assessment. Dialogic assessment, a term first proposed by Alexander (2004), is a position which seeks to synthesise the potentially powerful positions of both dialogic teaching and assessment for learning remains largely unexploited as an approach to developing effective teaching and learning.

Using video classroom evidence and interview, the authors explore the parameters within which dialogic teaching and assessment can be developed, and investigate the opportunities and obstacles which developing dialogic assessment bring about.

The authors develop a framework, drawing on the evidence, which demonstrates the development of dialogic assessment in the classroom.

This paper is an original look at dialogic assessment within the upper secondary sector.

The purpose of this paper is to deflate some of the pressure-orienting teachers toward following a curricular script.

The authors connect effective classroom teaching and learning practices to a dialogic instructional stance that values local resources and student perspectives and contributions. The authors argue that effective teachers have agency to make decisions about content and pacing adjustments (they call this agentive flow) and that they practice response-able talk. Response-able talk practices are responsive to what is happening in the classroom, responsibly nurture joint purposes and multiple perspectives, and cultivate longer exchanges of student exploratory talk. These talk practices are not easily scripted.

The authors show what these effective, local and dialogic instructional practices look like in a second-grade urban classroom.

The authors call upon every teacher to robustly find their local ways of working.

In this paper, the authors argue that harnessing the local is an essential aspect of dialogic instruction and a critical component of a dialogic instructional stance.

This paper introduces the special issue “Rebuilding trust: Sustainability and non-financial reporting, and the European Union regulation”. Inspired by the studies published in the special issue, this study aims to examine the concept of accountability within the context of the European Union (EU) Directive on non-financial disclosure (hereafter the EU Directive) to offer a critique and a novel perspective for future research into mandatory non-financial reporting (NFR) and to advance future practice and policy.

The authors review the papers published in this special issue and other contemporary studies on the topic of NFR and the EU Directive.

Accountability is a fundamental concept for building trust in the corporate reporting context and emerges as a common topic linking contemporary studies on the EU Directive. While the EU Directive acknowledges the role of accountability in the reporting practice, this study argues that regulation and practice on NFR needs to move away from an accounting-based conception of accountability to promote accountability-based accounting practices (Dillard and Vinnari, 2019). By analysing the links between trust, accountability and accounting and reporting, the authors claim the need to examine and rethink the inscription of interests into non-financial information (NFI) and its materiality. Hence, this study encourages research and practice to broaden mandatory NFR practice over the traditional boundaries of accountability, reporting and formal accounting systems.

Considering the challenges posed by the COVID-19 crisis, this study calls for further research to investigate the dialogical accountability underpinning NFR in practice to avoid the trap of focusing on accounting changes regardless of accountability. The authors advocate that what is needed is more timely NFI that develops a dialogue between companies, investors, national regulators, the EU and civil society, not more untimely standalone reporting that has most likely lost its relevance and materiality by the time it is issued to users.

By highlighting accountability issues in the context of mandatory NFR and its linkages with trust, this study lays out a case for moving the focus of research and practice from accounting-based regulations towards accountability-driven accounting change.

This paper aims to explore whether and how contemporary rankings reflect the dialogic development of smart cities.

This paper is based on the synthesis of smart city (SC), rankings and dialogic accounting literature. It first analyses ranking documents and related methodologies and measures and then reflects on four SC rankings, taking a critical stand on whether they provide space for the polyphonic development of smart cities.

This study argues that rankings do not include divergent perspectives and visions of smart cities, trapping cities in a mirage of multiple voices and bringing about a lack of urban stakeholder engagement. In other words, there is a gap between the democratic demands on smart cities and what rankings provide to governments when it comes to dialogue. As such, rankings in their existing traditional and technocratic form do not serve the dynamic and complex nature of the SC agenda. This, in turn, raises the threat that rankings create a particular notion of smartness across urban development with no possibility of questioning it.

The paper responds to recent calls to critically examine the concept of the SC and the role that accounting has played in its development. This study brings new insights regarding the value of dialogic accounting in shaping a contemporary understanding of rankings and their criticalities in the SC agenda.