This article discusses implications of Ove Karlsson's article, ‘Critical Dialogue: Its Value and Meaning’, for thinking about the union of dialogue and evaluation. It argues that Karlsson's empirical example can be read in several ways each illustrating a different understanding of what dialogue is and how it relates to evaluation. These different understandings are further elaborated. Karlsson's article is also instructive in alerting us to three tensions or aporiai (disputed issues or questions) in the effort to grasp the nature and meaning of dialogue and the concept of ‘dialogic evaluation’. These tensions have to do with the interpretation of the Socratic conception of dialogue, notions of learning and judging, and the idea of ‘critique’. These disputed issues are further clarified.
- (moral) judgement
- Socratic dialogue
- critical dialogue
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Sociology and Political Science