Understanding Dialogue as Practice

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)228-237
Number of pages10
JournalEvaluation
Volume7
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2001

Fingerprint

dialogue
evaluation
learning
interpretation
Values

Keywords

  • (moral) judgement
  • Bildung
  • Socratic dialogue
  • critical dialogue
  • practice

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Development
  • Sociology and Political Science

Cite this

Understanding Dialogue as Practice. / Schwandt, Thomas A.

In: Evaluation, Vol. 7, No. 2, 01.04.2001, p. 228-237.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Schwandt, Thomas A. / Understanding Dialogue as Practice. In: Evaluation. 2001 ; Vol. 7, No. 2. pp. 228-237.
@article{7562172b51574d60bcb967ec37a61508,
title = "Understanding Dialogue as Practice",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "(moral) judgement, Bildung, Socratic dialogue, critical dialogue, practice",
author = "Schwandt, {Thomas A}",
year = "2001",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/13563890122209658",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "7",
pages = "228--237",
journal = "Evaluation",
issn = "1356-3890",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Understanding Dialogue as Practice

AU - Schwandt, Thomas A

PY - 2001/4/1

Y1 - 2001/4/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - (moral) judgement

KW - Bildung

KW - Socratic dialogue

KW - critical dialogue

KW - practice

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=27744490106&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=27744490106&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/13563890122209658

DO - 10.1177/13563890122209658

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:27744490106

VL - 7

SP - 228

EP - 237

JO - Evaluation

JF - Evaluation

SN - 1356-3890

IS - 2

ER -