Tensions have been identified in the shift to dialogue whereby researchers produce and communicate research-based knowledge in interaction with different social actors. This paper draws on three perspectives on those tensions— science and technology studies analyses of public engagement, action research and dialogic communication theory—in order to explore how the tensions are articulated in the communication processes that are integral to the co-production of knowledge in a case study of collaborative research about virtual worlds. The data analysed are based on the workshops where the collaborating actors (university researchers and practitioners) co-produce knowledge through communication processes in which different expert-identities and knowledge forms are negotiated. The analysis explores the balancing-act between imposing control on the research process and opening up for a plurality of voices. The paper concludes with a discussion of the value of a reflexive approach for the analysis and design of dialogic research communication.
Bakhtin, M. ( 1981) The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, ed. M. Holquist, trans. C. Emerson and M. Holquist. Austin, TX and London: University of Texas Press.
2.
Baxter, L. ( 2006) "Dialogue," in G. Shepherd , J. St. John and T. Striphas (eds) Communication as …: Perspectives on Theory, pp. 101-9. London: SAGE.
3.
Black, L. ( 2008) "Deliberation, Storytelling, and Dialogic Moments,"Communication Theory18(1): 93-116.
4.
Clark, K. and Holquist, M. ( 1984) Mikhail Bakhtin. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5.
Cunningham, W.S. ( 2008) "Voices from the Field: Practitioner Reactions to Collaborative Research Initiatives," Action Research6(4): 373-90.
6.
Deetz, S. and Simpson, J. ( 2004) "Critical Organizational Dialogue: Open Formation and the Demand of ‘Otherness,’" in R. Anderson, L. Baxter and K. Cissna (eds) Dialogue: Theorizing Difference in Communication Studies, pp. 141-58. London: SAGE.
7.
European Research Advisory Board (2007) Final Report "Research and Societal Engagement." URL (accessed 3 November 2008): http://ec.europa.eu/research/eurab/pdf/eurab_07_013_june_%202007_en.pdf
8.
Foucault, M. ( 1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
9.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. ( 1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: SAGE.
10.
Gordon, E. ( 2008) "The Geography of Virtual Worlds: An Introduction," Space and Culture11(3): 200-3.
11.
Hornig Priest, S. ( 2005) "Commentary-Room at the Bottom of Pandora’s Box: Peril and Promise in Communicating Nanotechnology,"Science Communication27(2): 292-9.
12.
House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology ( 2000) Science and Society. London: The Stationery Office.
13.
Irwin, A. ( 2001) "Constructing the Scientific Citizen: Science and Democracy in the Biosciences," Public Understanding of Science10(1): 1-18.
14.
Irwin, A. ( 2006) "The Politics of Talk: Coming to Terms with the ‘New’ Scientific Governance," Social Studies of Science36(2): 299-330.
15.
Jørgensen, M.W. and Phillips, L. ( 2002) Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London: SAGE.
16.
Kristiansen, M. and Bloch-Poulsen, J. ( 2004) "Self-referentiality as a Power Mechanism: Towards Dialogic Action Research," Action Research2(4): 371-88.
17.
Kristiansen, M. and Bloch-Poulsen, J. ( 2006) "Involvement as a Dilemma: Between Dialogue and Discussion in Team Based Organizations," International Journal of Action Research2(2): 163-97.
18.
Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. ( 1985) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso.
19.
MacNaghten, P., Kearnes, M. and Wynne, B. ( 2005) "Nanotechnology, Governance and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences?," Science Communication27(2): 268-91.
20.
Nielsen, K.A. and Svensson, L. (eds) (2006) Action and Interactive Research: Beyond Practice and Theory. Maastricht: Shaker Publishing.
21.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. ( 2001) Rethinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. London: Polity Press .
22.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. ( 2003) "‘Mode 2’ Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge," Minerva41(3): 179-94.
23.
Ospina, S., Dodge, J., Godsoe, B., Minieri, J., Reza, S. and Schall, E. ( 2004) "From Consent to Mutual Inquiry: Balancing Democracy and Authority in Action Research," Action Research2(1): 47-69.
24.
Pearce, K. and Pearce, B.W. ( 2001) "The Public Dialogue Consortium’s School-wide Dialogue Process: A Communication Approach to Develop Citizenship Skills and Enhance School Climate," Communication Theory11(1): 105-23.
25.
Pearce, W.B. ( 2007) Making Social Worlds: A Communication Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
26.
Pearce, W.B. and Pearce, K. ( 2004) "Taking a Communication Perspective on Dialogue," in R. Anderson, L. Baxter and K. Cissna (eds) Dialogue: Theorizing Difference in Communication Studies, pp. 39-56. London: SAGE.
27.
Pedersen, C.H. and Olesen, B.R. ( 2008) "What Knowledge-Which relationships? Sharing Dilemmas of an Action Researcher," International Journal of Action Research4(3): 254-90.
28.
Phillips, L. ( 2008a) "Når forskningsbaseret viden forhandles: den dialogiske drejning inden for forskningskommunikation" [Negotiating research-based knowledge: the dialogic turn in the communication of research], Læring og Medier1(1): 1-19.
29.
Phillips, L. ( 2008b) "Producing, Negotiating and Sharing Knowledge about Virtual Worlds: Discursive Constructions of Second Life,"Paper for panel on "Virtual Worlds as Sites for Social and Cultural Innovation: Empirical Explorations," Digital Culture and Communication Section, the 2nd European Communication Conference of the European Communication Research and Education Association (ECREA), Barcelona, 25-28 November.
30.
Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (eds) (2001) Handbook of Action Research: Participatory Inquiry and Practice. London: SAGE.
31.
Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (eds) (2006) Handbook of Action Research , Concise Paperback Edition. London: SAGE.
32.
Rogers-Hayden, T. and Pidgeon, N. ( 2007) "Moving Engagement ‘Upstream’? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering’s Inquiry," Public Understanding of Science16(3): 345-64.
33.
Schroeder, R. ( 2008) "Defining Virtual Worlds and Virtual Environments," Journal of Virtual Worlds Research1(1): 2-3.
34.
Spencer, B. and Taylor, A. ( 2007) "Mobilizing Knowledge through Partnerships," Journal of Curriculum Theorizing23(2): 59-74.
35.
Stewart, J., Zediker, K. and Black, L. ( 2004) "Relationships among Philosophies of Dialogue," in R. Anderson, L. Baxter and K. Cissna (eds) Dialogue: Theorizing Difference in Communication Studies, pp. 21-38. London: SAGE.
36.
Trench, B. ( 2008) "Towards an Analytical Framework of Science Communication Models," in D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne , J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele and S. Shi (eds) (2008) Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices, pp. 119-35. New York: Springer Publishing.
37.
Wynne, B. ( 2006) "Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science: Hitting the Notes but Missing the Music?,"Community Genetics9(3) 211-20.
