Search results

This chapter examines the goals and outcomes of intergroup dialogue through the evaluation of a dialogue program between city and suburban high school students located in Syracuse, NY. The Community Wide Dialogue to End Racism, Improve Race Relations and Begin Racial Healing (CWD) organizers share with a wide range of conflict theorists and practitioners the impulse to bring citizens together to talk about complex social conflicts. Two of the main goals of this program, to build participants’ understandings of institutional racism and white privilege, are examined here. Drawing on in-depth interviews with a small sample of dialogue participants, a framework is developed for categorizing participant awareness and understanding of institutional racism and white privilege. The analysis suggests that relatively modest levels of understanding of both concepts should be anticipated from participants both before and after completion of a dialogue of this type. While dramatic changes resulting from the dialogue are not found, the data indicate that the dialogue does have demonstrable impacts on the ways participants think and talk about institutional racism and white privilege. The central challenges faced by participants in understanding the concepts, specifically ability to personalize white privilege and capacity to adopt structural ways of thinking about institutional racism, are identified and described. This research helps to clarify the range of outcomes we can feasibly expect when bringing citizens together to talk about social conflicts by providing a qualitative framework for measuring awareness and understanding of white privilege and institutional racism.

In this study, the strategies of companies regarding social media and stakeholder dialogue and engagement are central. Based on insights from previous studies, it showed that organizations used little opportunities for stakeholder dialogue on social media. Since dialogue is a condition to create engagement, it is of importance for a follow-up study. Therefore, 10 respondents from leading European companies were interviewed and asked about strategies regarding stakeholder dialogue and related topics. From the results, we can conclude that engaging in dialogue with stakeholders on social media is still underdeveloped. Organizations are not only missing opportunities but also take risk not pursuing the opportunities social media offer.

Michael Holquist (1990), one of the commentators on Mikhail Bakhtin’s monumental work, stated flatly that “human existence is dialogue,” and Ivana Markova (2003) declared that “dialogism is the ontology of humanity.” Bakhtin (1985;1986) himself said that such dialogues are conducted by using “speech genres.” From another angle Kenneth Burke asked, “What is involved when we say what people are doing and why they are doing it?” and claimed – and showed – that this question can be best answered by using what he called the “grammar of motives,” which consisted of a hexad of terms: act, attitude, scene, agent, agency, and purpose. In this chapter, I examine, by using various examples, how the Burkean grammar is used in the construction of one speech genre or the other to achieve rhetorically effective dialogic communication.

Dialogue has been an elusive concept for academics when it comes to its definition within organisational contexts. In spite of the vast amount of academic research, it is not easy to find concrete proposals – both from theoretical and empirical standpoints – that analyse how companies manage dialogue processes with their stakeholders. The aim of this chapter is to fill this gap by highlighting the role of dialogue in strategic decision-making processes. In order to achieve this purpose, this work is structured into two parts. Firstly, multidisciplinary literature regarding how Public Relations and Management studies research on dialogue is reviewed. Secondly, the chapter presents a managerial proposal of dialogue for decision-making processes called the IDEA model. This chapter aims to scale back the theoretical fragmentation of the concept of dialogue while looking into its practicality based on an original proposal for scholars and practitioners.

Schools struggle with sustaining their educational innovations (Cohen and Mehta, 2017; Askell-Williams and Koh, 2020) and may benefit from concrete and practical guidance (Askell-Williams and Koh, 2020). A dialogue between staff within schools can be a way to promote self-evaluation regarding the innovation. Therefore, a self-evaluation tool for educators was developed: The Sustainability Meter (TSM). The purpose of the tool is to gain insight into the different perspectives and experiences of stakeholders within the school organization regarding the innovation, as a basis for improvement-directed actions to promote sustainable educational innovation.

In this small-scale study, the authors explored conceptual and instrumental use of the Sustainability Meter in two phases, and also examined user satisfaction. In phase 1, the tool was used under the guidance of the researcher (first author), who supported the chairs in taking steps before the group dialogue took place, and who then guided the dialogue itself as a moderator. In phase 2, work with TSM was organized independently by the schools themselves, supported by the manual. Data were collected in the form of observations of the dialogue, group interviews and documents generated by the participants.

In terms of conceptual use, in general, participants gained better understanding of each other's perspectives and backgrounds with regard to the (sustainability of the) innovation. The dialogue also led to insights into challenges for growth toward sustainable innovation. For instrumental use, the results of the analysis were incorporated in a plan of action in the majority of the participants' schools. In terms of user satisfaction, participants in all groups perceived TSM as an enjoyable support for high-quality dialogue. This research provides some indications that the tool might lead to sustainable educational innovations.

Next to developing an action plan based on the results of the school, the tool also appeared to help breaking up the process in smaller, clearer and more feasible improvement-directed actions. The results of this study further show that the authors could distinguish between three types of instrumental use. The improvement-directed actions in this research often were a combination of this three types: initial solutions, short-term and longer-term measures. This research provides some indications that the tool might lead to sustainable educational innovations.

This study aims to explore the experiences of using competitive dialogue (CD) as a procurement procedure and the freedom it provides to the contracting parties in Norway.

This study opted for qualitative research design. Data were collected from four case projects through document reviews and in-depth interviews with procurement experts and key contract partners of the projects.

Results indicate that CD has some room for maneuver that is worth trying. Furthermore, the research identified several measures that can be implemented to use the procedure effectively. Contracting parties that have used the procedure have had various positive experiences.

The findings have implications in improving project outputs, building better trust and cooperation between the contracting parties and better use of public money on projects that have lasting outcomes for the society.

The authors studied four actual projects that used CD as a procurement procedure and aimed to provide first-hand information on the degree of freedom that it offered to the contracting parties.

In the context of debates on the role of social partners in shaping anti-crisis policies, the article explores the developments of social dialogue in Poland following the outbreak of the pandemic. The central research question is whether the crisis has helped to revitalise social dialogue or has it further revealed its weaknesses that were apparent before it.

The paper is based on the combination of literature review and the analysis of primary data derived from 22 expert interviews with the representatives of trade unions, employers and ministries collected in 2020–2021 in four essential industries (education, health care, social care and logistics).

The analysis suggests that the pandemic led to reinforcement of “illusory corporatism” in Poland, deepened mistrust among social partners and triggered a shift to informal channels of influencing policymaking. The weakness of the social partners and the strong position of the right-wing populist government meant that fears of recession and a health crisis were insufficient to develop “crisis” corporatism. While business interests were represented better than labour in policymaking, limited labour-friendly outcomes have been achieved as a result of workers’ mobilisation and unilateral decisions of the government rather than tripartite social dialogue.

Based on original empirical research, the article contributes to the discussion on the impact of the crisis on social dialogue under patchwork capitalism. It points to the role of strong governments and informality in circumventing tripartite structures and the importance of essential workers’ mobilisation in response to the lack of social dialogue.

This paper aims to respond to the recent calls to discover the research developments in the field of public budgeting. Particularly, it explores whether and how research dialogue unfolds within the public budgeting field over time and how to stimulate it further, by investigating the case of a specific journal oriented to budgeting topics.

Applying a case study strategy, this paper reviews previous studies on public budgeting published in one specific journal, the Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management (JPBAFM), from its “online inception” in 1994 to 2020. Borrowing ideas from dialogue literature, the authors analyse 108 selected papers according to a multi-dimensional framework for exploring research dialogues taking into account the year of publication, authorship (and affiliation), research setting, method and theoretical approach, and, above all, research topics on budgeting.

The findings illustrate that whilst public budgeting research has been fluctuating over time in the JPBAFM, there is a growing interest in the topic over the last several years (2015–2020). Yet, the journal illustrates a limited dialogic development of the field of public budgeting, where produced knowledge has been significantly North America-oriented, normative and quantitative-dominated. Until recently, only a limited role has been given to dialogue formation between researchers and practitioners, but the current debate is increasingly being enriched by new perspectives and a wider range of experiences. Finally, public budgeting has been addressed from multiple perspectives over time, with a significant impact determined by performance and participatory budgeting. Although multiple topics are receiving growing attention, it is still under-developed in the inter-dialogue formation between topics and theories, despite the more recently growing use of different theoretical approaches and empirical and analytical rigour.

The research is limited to one journal as a case study and does not claim to provide an overall reflection of public budgeting research and related empirical generalisations. Instead, the authors strive for a theoretical generalisation of multi-dimensional dialogue importance in the field.

The value of the research lies in a comprehensive analysis of research dialogue formation within public sector budgeting over time in an international journal that has actively engaged with public sector issues and, specifically, with budgeting. By so doing, this paper adds a critical stand on the value of dialogue in fostering inter-contextual and inter-disciplinary research in the field of public budgeting.

The paper uses theoretical conceptions of power and orchestration to analyse the role of the Corporate Reporting Dialogue on the global standardisation of sustainability reporting.

The paper adopts an interpretive approach and draws on a qualitative dataset derived from interviews, documentary analysis and observation.

The paper traces how the Corporate Reporting Dialogue was orchestrated by the International Integrated Reporting Council, with the objective of aligning sustainability reporting standards, but moved to become a vehicle for orchestrating standards consistent with the recommendations of the Task Force for Climate-Related Financial Disclosure. Collaboration between the Dialogue's five most active bodies forged the blueprint adopted by the International Sustainability Standards Board's vision of sustainability reporting that prioritised reporting only on those socio-ecological issues deemed to materially affect future enterprise value.

The paper explicates the role of collaborative initiatives in the standardisation of sustainability reporting and shows how these initiatives act as vehicles to subtly undermine the GRI position (presented as one standardiser amongst many whose vision appears as an outlier, despite its position as the dominant sustainability reporting standardiser), and establish the prioritisation of a sustainability reporting worldview based on investor-oriented enterprise value creation. The case also draws attention to the specific orchestrators involved in establishing this prioritisation, and reveals the influence of philanthropic foundations. In doing so, it extends our understanding of legitimacy generation in standard-setting by showing how collaborative initiatives offer private standardisers another means to generate input legitimacy for what, in this case, represented a vision of reporting at odds with most sustainability reporting practice. Finally, the paper extends the sites of power to collaborative initiatives and details the mechanisms through which covert power is exercised but also masked where orchestrators use convening power, funding and membership choices to define the boundaries of discussion by influencing who participates, what is on the agenda and what activity is undertaken. Rather than viewing standardisation as a simple pursuit of conquest between individual standardisers, the paper considers how collaboration provides the opportunity for assimilation.

This paper explores face-to-face dialogues between practitioners and interventionist researchers in the management accounting (MA) field during real-time interactions for the development of accounting devices. It aims to shed light on whether and how these dialogues can affect the construction of meanings around the devices, thereby influencing the course of interventionist research (IVR) projects.

This study presents a reflective analysis (both in itinere and ex-post) of an IVR project conducted by one of the authors within a healthcare organisation. It draws on a dialogical perspective to delve into the conversations between the author and the organisation's chief executive officer (CEO) during one-to-one meetings for developing a new strategic dashboard.

The findings show that a lack of alignment between the images invoked by verbal forms and the device representations can hinder accounting IVR projects. Obstacles can be overcome when the researcher, by acting upon verbal forms and device representations that mutually reinforce each other, shapes the practitioner's expectations creating shared meanings around the device. This occurs during face-to-face interactions in which the researcher recognises the trialogue with the practitioner and the device, thereby affecting the practitioner's mode of engagement.

This paper contributes to improving the understanding of how researchers can affect practitioners' conceptualisation of accounting devices through the real-time experience of face-to-face dialogues. In doing so, it sheds light on the potential for IVR in MA to embrace a dialogical perspective. The paper also contributes more broadly to studies on the relationship between verbal and written accounting forms.