Dialogue on Dialogue |
Liz Burge, Judy Roberts, Thérèse Lamy, Noël Thomas, and Jim Bizzochi pioneered a "dialogue on dialogue" at the CADE Conference, "New Alliances", held in Ottawa, May12-15, 1992. Building on the discussion that took place that afternoon, Liz Burge and Judy Roberts offer this additional "dialogue".
Judy: I'm an administrator in the field of distance education who tries to keep current on a wide range of issues: research, learning support, technical developments. Part of my personal and professional responsibility is to "translate" current issues in distance education to non-distance educators. In trying to do this well, I, like you, am imprisoned by the "strengths and implicit weaknesses"1 of my role in distance education.
So, I am intrigued to learn that a prominent writer2 on learning organizations refers to the importance of dialogue in learning. My initial reaction is that I don't understand why our previous professional interest in the importance of interaction and communication is to be superseded by a new focus on something called "dialogue." The reason seems to be that dialogue is different. This premise is difficult for me to grasp, since, intuitively, they seem to me to be synonymous. Indeed, when I turn to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, I find that "interaction" means "reciprocal action or influence"; a "conversation" is the informal exchange of ideas by "spoken words"; and "dialogue" is "conversation"! Funk & Wagnalls lists conversation, dialogue, communication, and talk as synonyms! So I am at a loss to understand, prima facie, why we distance educators must give up on our dated notion of the importance of communication between/among learners and teachers/facilitators/ tutors and get onto the cutting edge of this discovery of dialogue. HELP!
Liz: All these terms appear to be synonymous. I don't disagree with you on that point, but we should go beyond the prima facie stage. There are a few linguistic wrinkles to iron out here, I think. First, why do we have so many words for the one set of behaviours between human beings? I think it's because there are so many forms of spoken communication and that we individually develop different meanings for each term.
For example, Peter Senge (to whom you referred) does distinguish between "discussion" and "dialogue." The first term refers to a more analytical, rational, and dissective process; the second refers to a process that is more free flowing, that may be intuitive, and that certainly depends on the often messy but always collegial process of a group developing its own set of new ideas in some kind of cumulative and constructive process. Senge's definition of the dialogue that's needed for learning to occur in organizations resonates with my experience. I attach different meanings to the various words that refer to people talking; you see them as synonymous.
The second point (or wrinkle) is that regardless of whether you call it "conversation" or I call it "dialogue," or others call it two way communication (as in a "transaction"), I think that we distance educators talk about "talk" using an inadequate number of dimensions. We've used much ink and many words over the years talking about things such as "guided didactic conversations," "learning partnerships," "discussions," and the like, but our words don't do justice to everything that's involved, both overt and covert. When I sit with adult learners in a visual classroom, for example, and listen to them talking out their thinking and reacting to peers and to me, I keep trying to get a handle on all the factors at play. . . . And then I think about distance mode classrooms and realize that while our technologies collect people together, they don't of themselves connect people intellectually and emotionally. What do you think? You've had a lot of experience in managing "talking-to-learn" situations . . . let's get past disputing the labels . . .
Judy: I agree that we need to get beyond disputing labels, BUT . . . if you and I, and others (look at the different perspectives brought to bear by our colleagues during the session on dialogue that took place at the CADE '92 ACED conference in Ottawa) can't agree on some common meanings, then we will have trouble communicating. While words will always resonate differently for each of us, and each of us may prefer one synonym over another, I contend that we must have some common understandings, or we will have perpetual confusion. Does that make sense to you?
Liz: Yes, that does make sense; but what about the claim that distance educators talk about "talk" using an inadequate number of dimensions?
Judy: I agree that as distance educators we have not yet fully explicated the complexities of the learning that occurs as a consequence of communication processes mediated by various technologies. In that way we may be no different than educators trying to describe what takes place in a visual classroom! My problem is that I'm not sure whether we advance our appreciation of the complexity of learning in groups by using different labels to describe what goes on; unless, of course, we can establish that there are valid distinctions.
Let me put it another way. . . . If someone could provide descriptions of the various parts of the communicative process and demonstrate that several independent observers, using those descriptions, had coded tapes of classroom and/or distance learning situations identically, then I would be able to understand that "dialogue" is different from "discussion." So far, it makes more sense to me to use the terms synonymously, and to get at the nuances of the process by using adjectives. For example, I would prefer to distinguish between a session (either in the classroom or at a distance) in which freewheeling discussion resulted in a great deal of learning and a session in which very little learning took place because neither the tutor nor members of the group could intervene and end one person's monopolization of the time.
In other words, I agree that we should spend more time fine tuning our descriptions of the learning process, but I'm not sure if adopting "idiosyncratic distance education-specific" meanings for terms such as "dialogue" helps me to do that. Or perhaps, because words like "dialogue" and "conversation" are used so regularly, we want to generate our own professional labels in much the same way as psychiatry invented the label "schizophrenia."
Liz: Let me respond to the two points you have made. As an administrator, you need independent, experimental research evidence before you would agree that different terminology is needed. You would prefer to use adjectives to indicate nuances and levels of communication.
For me, research evidence is only one part of the pie. My own direct experience and the personal knowledge gained from reflecting on that experience (as I'm doing now) is quite another. I am quite comfortable now (I wasn't ten years ago) with "listening" to my own experience and drawing up my own ideas before I compare them with other people's research results. I'm not disputing the need for research, but I am concerned that we may place too much reliance on external authorities and ignore or even lose faith in our own common sense and our ability to reflect critically on that experience. I've also reached a point at which I need to question the terminology we use, to do some conceptual dry cleaning: not in a destructive way, but to get at underlying values and assumptions and to check their relevance to my values and assumptions. For example, a "guided didactic conversation" is to me almost an oxymoron because of the meanings I attach to "conversation," "guided," and "didactic," and because of the inherent power relationships between teacher and student. Another example, the phrase "the cut and thrust of academic debate" has been used at distance education conferences to refer to student discussions, but the images created by that phrase and its connotations of win-lose just appall me. So, you see, I'm now questioning many labels, especially those we use to refer to our relationships with learners and to define our roles and values.
I can best do that when I have a clearer picture of my context: what are the compositions, the shadings, the movements, the dynamics, the values, and the assumptions at play? Then I develop my own set of meaning codes. When I think that as a learning designer I have to focus as much on dialogue about as with delivery of information, I'm using "dialogue" as a code word for my mental map about all the elements and dynamics . So, you see, I`m not satisfied with your suggestion to use adjectives. Do you have a map of elements and dynamics? How do you "see" the process?
Judy: Before I answer that, there's something I need to re-state. Good research, to me, starts with an individual's reflections on her/his experience and knowlege; the knowledge may be derived from conventional, received wisdom or from particular personal experience. Inspired by the starting point, the individual researcher reaches out to see if his/her experience, knowing and opinion are unique or can be agreed to by others. I think that we as individuals and we as society can incorporate both the particular (one's own experience) and the general (the experiences and research evidence of others) into our lives. I am not trying to say (and hope you did not hear me saying) that the one operates to the detriment of the other. To situate, or contextualize, my experience and my mental map, I need to know what the "received wisdom/validated research" is: that is to say, labels are not debating points, they are important common codes. I don't see one (validated research) as better than the other (my/your individual thoughts); I need both to construct my map. I'm not sure it matters to me which comes first.
Let me amplify one part of my mental map and begin to answer your question more directly. I felt privileged to listen to Ursula Franklin's talk, and later I talked to various people about different meanings and learnings that I and they took from it. It seemed to me that she had both researched her topic and applied her own individual experience to those research results. For me, this rich synergy was validated by its resonance with so many other people. Her thoughts will perhaps enter some pool of "received wisdom" because so many people can share and grow from her vision.
I can't differentiate any of these "talkings" as dialogue, in contrast to others called communication. If you believe there is a difference, I'm not trying to deny your experience. What I am saying is that I can't yet share it: all of my dialogues were conversations (many were multi-logues, to use Noël Thomas's term) that facilitated my under-standing of her stunning presentation. So, I would paraphrase one of your earlier sentences by saying we in distance education have to concern ourselves as much with facilitating understanding3 as with the delivery of information. Some of the conversations I had in Ottawa facilitated understanding better than others. Factors influencing that understanding include the extent to which I attended to what was being said; the extent to which ideas were repeated; and the incidence of non-sequiturs. Some conversations were constructive; some were boring. But from my point of view they were variations of the same process, hence my desire to label them with any one of several synonyms. And they probably could have been mediated by technology; they need not necessarily have taken place in visual space!
So, I still need help in trying to distinguish what you mean by "dialogue" as contrasted with what you mean by "conversation" or "communication" (I agree that "guided didactic conversation" does not help as much here). If we do not agree on the need to dissect meaning, then could you describe what you see as the components, values, and conditions necessary for effective understanding to take place in the adult learning process and in what way are they differentially reflected in the various terms mentioned here?
Liz: I'll try first to answer your second question. The term "communi- cation" is for me a very broad term used to indicate a form of action: information and thoughts and feelings are being transferred or exchanged; people aren't building houses, or doing anything else. A "conversation" is an informal and often comfortable interaction that doesn't always have to be task productive. A "dialogue" is a more sustained and purposeful conversation that may also create some discomfort as people unfreeze their thinking or confront others' perceptions. Now, of course, there are many dimensions to all three terms but dialogue has for me the most complex mix. The key ingredients are configurations, dynamics, and maturity. Configurations refer to how people are arranged in time and space contexts (for instance, real and delayed time, small and large groups) and what levels and kinds of knowledge are in use and who claims ownership of that knowledge. The dynamics are those operating to help or hinder relationships between and amongst individuals and the generation of understanding: the styles and attitudes of expression (e.g., negotiate, conciliate, provoke, debate, confirm) and the pacing - the ebbs and flows and energy changes. Maturity is tricky. We talk about the stages of group development and the phases of each dimension of adult maturity, but why can we not also think about maturity in terms of how learners and teachers behave as a group? For example, a teacher working in or towards a mature class process would be carrying out what I call the 5 C's - clarifying outcomes, confirming new learnings, correcting any misunderstandings, challenging learners to more critical thinking, and connecting them to further resources. And learners would be carrying out a complementary set of responsibilities in order to reach greater cognitive, affective, and psychomotor skills.
That's what runs through my head when I think of "dialogue." Our talking in paper letters has only reinforced for me the complexities of communication and the need for conceptual clarity, not necessarily in the sense of needing fewer terms, but in needing clarification based on each speaker's values and socializations. For example, I'd the under-standings
Readers are encouraged to enter the conversation by sending their thoughts on this issue to the Editors of the Journal.
1. Ursula Franklin at CADE '92 ACED conference "New Alliances/Nouvelles Complicités," Ottawa, May 13, 1992.
2. Peter Senge, The Fifth Discipline, New York: Doubleday, 1990.
3. Emphasis mine: your word was dialogue.