Search results

The use of dialogues within and across organizations is on the rise. This increase is a tacit acknowledgement of the relational foundations from which new meaning is created and social innovations emerge. However, coming together for a dialogue doesn’t assure constructive conversation or transformative engagement. Dialogue participants, even when they are asked to “suspend assumptions,” are generally still embedded in the mental models and familiar frameworks that distance them from one another and prevent real generativity and novelty.

This paper proposes Appreciative Inquiry as an approach particularly conducive to creating public dialogues that are generative and transformative. It suggests that a community is best served by inquiry into strengths, assets and past successes. It further proposes that this mode of inquiry tends to produce positive emotional states, which expand the resources and pro-social inclinations of those in the dialogue. It offers five conditions that support generative and transformative public dialogue and explains how Appreciative Inquiry creates these conditions.

In this chapter we are exploring Appreciative Inquiry within organizations through the dialogic process in its relational aspect. The present discussion is composed of four parts: An exploration of the myriad meanings of dialogue and a description of a useful orienting platform, dialogue as “discursive coordination.” We then turn to the pivotal function of dialogue in the organizing process and the development of a vocabulary of discursive action with practical consequences for effective organizing. We next turn to the problematic potentials of dialogue. A contrast between generative and degenerative dialogue enables us to explore how certain forms of coordination ultimately lead to organizational growth or demise. Among our conclusions we propose that dialogue originates in public, is a form of joint-action, is embodied and contextually embedded, as well as historically and culturally situated. Dialogue may serve both positive and negative ends. Described are four aspects of dialogue – an emphasis on affirmation, productive difference, coherence, and temporal integration. Appreciative inquiry adds an enormously important element to the transformative potentials of dialogue. Other transformative practices and potentials are also described.

Teacher education programs have begun to address the dilemma of preparing a predominantly white and female teaching force to work with diverse populations whose experiences have no connection to the students they will teach (Darling-Hammond, 2006). Those who teach courses that address cultural diversity are challenged to engage students in meaningful dialogue about all things multicultural, as well as provoke thought about understanding the importance of cultural competence and its impact on teaching practice. The university classroom is where meaningful and transformative conversations must occur and they begin with acceptance of ourselves – all of us – as cultural beings.

Dialogue is a special way of thinking and talking that invites people to open a space for learning together. Its purpose is to bring out change at the source of people's thoughts and feelings rather than at the level of results their ways of thinking produce. A case study illustrates how dialogue creates “collective intelligence” — a “field” of shared meaning and energy. The chapter then outlines the basic elements of an “action theory” of dialogue: the face-to-face obstacles in the creation of the field; the four basic phases in dialogue's evolution; and a strategic map of interventions to guide future dialogic practice.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the theory and practice of Generative Research mentoring. The author has been involved in research mentoring teachers in schools since 2002 and in the course of her work her concepts about integrating mentoring and action research have changed. She explains how and why she has moved to adopt an Appreciative Inquiry approach integrated with a model of mentoring that she developed in the course of her own practice in schools.

This is a self study of teacher education practice where the author analyses her own theories and practices of research mentoring for teachers in schools in England and in Japan, over a ten year period. She investigates how the nature of self‐study is impacted upon by culture in diverse intercultural contexts.

This article reflects work in process. The findings to date suggest that teacher research and thus (potentially) research mentoring for teachers: is not informed by consensus on what teachers should learn as research skills; might usefully be focused upon action research enabled by teachers’ self study; works differently as self study according to Eastern/Western concepts of self; is likely to become more universally acceptable as self study through use of web‐based templates where self studies are shared e.g. at www.merlot.org; and should challenge mentoring/coaching techniques from other contexts such as business, nor assuming techniques successful in one context are so in another. Practitioner researchers in educational settings are likely to benefit from outsiders’ support, be that from colleagues based in universities or from teacher researchers working in other schools. That situation, in my experience, could come about where generative research mentoring has been successful and research mentees emerge to become research mentors for others within the profession of teaching. Importantly, individuals’ self study research should not rely upon unsupported opinions or upon validation by a peer group with self‐interest in seeing one of the community's study, accepted for university accreditation such as a Masters Level Award or a doctorate.

While the practice of research mentoring for teacher researchers has been in process in schools in England for ten years, the concept of Generative Research Mentoring, whereby the mentee prepares to become a mentor for other teacher researchers, is unique to the author's work. The value of generative research mentoring, not just for schoolteachers but also for academic contexts such as universities internationally, is that it can build capacity for research to be undertaken among those whose research skills are previously under‐developed.

The aim of this paper is to develop and test a theoretical framework, grounded in managerial and organisational theories of dialogue, through which organisations can take decisions in relation to the most appropriate crisis response strategies for handling social media stakeholders.

The theoretical framework is developed through a conceptual analysis of literature on dialogue, social media and crisis communication. The theoretical framework is then tested in eight different international organisations experiencing a crisis. For each case, different web contents, such as organisations' status updates/posts, links, videos published on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, were analysed using a rhetorical research approach.

The analysed organisations apply different online dialogue strategies according to crisis types and in combination with specific crisis response strategies. Most of the organisations investigated carry on those dialogue strategies suitable to develop consensus (concertative), guide conversations on specific topics or issues (framing), find solutions to the crisis collectively (transformative). Concertative strategies were often associated with informative crisis response strategies, framing strategies with denial and justification crisis response strategies and transformative strategies with corrective actions.

By using a dialogic perspective in setting up online conversations with their external stakeholders, the paper proposes a theoretical model to explain companies' decisions in carrying on online dialogues during critical situations and thus contribute to the body of knowledge on online crisis communications.

The proposed model can support crisis communicators to manage dialogue's aims and dimensions differently by taking into account both contextual and situational conditions.

By integrating management studies on dialogue into crisis communication and social media literature, the authors intend to offer an alternative thinking of organisations' decision-making in relation to crisis response strategies and social media stakeholders.

My aims in this chapter are to discuss alternative ways of doing education and research, and thereby highlight key contributions from Paulo Freire, Orlando Fals-Borda and Dorothy Lee, to active learning, participatory action-research and intercultural dialogue. These scholars were heirs of the university reform movements of the twentieth century, and their vital legacy is alive as shown in this book. The enclosed ideas and illustrations of transformative research and education draw from my academic experience in various corners of the world and points in time.

This paper aims to review the latest management developments across the globe and pinpoint practical implications from cutting-edge research and case studies.

This briefing is prepared by an independent writer who adds his own impartial comments and places the articles in context.

The analyzed organizations apply different online dialogue strategies according to crisis types and in combination with specific crisis response strategies. Most of the organizations investigated carry on those dialogue strategies suitable to develop consensus (concertative), guide conversations on specific topics or issues (framing) and find solutions to the crisis collectively (transformative). Concertative strategies were often associated with informative crisis response strategies, framing strategies with denial and justification crisis response strategies and transformative strategies with corrective actions.

The paper provides strategic insights and practical thinking that have influenced some of the world’s leading organizations.

The briefing saves busy executives and researchers hours of reading time by selecting only the very best, most pertinent information and presenting it in a condensed and an easy-to digest format.

The purpose of the paper is to show power mechanisms of in- and exclusion in moments where certain participants appeared to be othered in two collaborative research and development projects in a healthcare setting.

The paper contributes to critical-reflexive analyses of reflexive processes within collaborative knowledge production. The authors use an analytical framework combining Bakhtin and Foucault to investigate processes of inclusion and exclusion in the interplay between dominant and subordinated voices in a moment-by-moment analysis of two incidents from interdisciplinary workshops.

The analysis illuminates how differences between voices challenge participants’ reflexive awareness and lead to the reproduction of contextual power and knowledge hierarchies and the concomitant silencing of particular participants. Thus, the findings draw attention to the complex and ethical nature of collaborative knowledge production.

To invite researchers to be reflexive about the complex, situated and emergent character of reflexive processes and consider ethics to be a critical stance that encourages continuous reflection and critique of collaborative knowledge production.

To show the importance of not sweeping incidents in which participants are othered “under the carpet” in collaborative research. To present an analytical framework for analysing the contextual and emergent nature of collaborative research processes and discuss the ethical conundrums, which arise in the research process.