Looking at dialogue from the intersection of theory and practice, we present our view of dialogue as a democratizing practice. Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, we compared and contrasted our notions against data we collected. Our analyses of the two case studies suggest power relations, the identity of the evaluator, and the skills needed to facilitate dialogue, are problematic, including virtual dialogue. The evaluator needs to be more than an expert. Knowing the theory of dialogue in evaluation was not sufficient to understand these two cases. Instead we saw in each instance, the evaluator drew on tacit skills to keep the dialogue going. These skills were developed in the ‘thick of practice’. But more importantly, these cases show how the evaluator must privilege the dialogical process to keep it going.
Abma, T. A. (1998) ‘Text in the Evaluative Context: Writing for Dialogue’, Evaluation4(4): 434–454.
2.
Abma, T. A. (1999) ‘The Schiphol Discussion: The Future of Dutch Aviation Responsively Evaluated’, Presentation at the Annual Conference of the American Evaluation Association Orlando, FL, November.
3.
Barber, B. (1984) Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
4.
Barber, B. (1989) ‘Liberal Democracy and the Costs of Consent’, in N. L. Rosenblum (ed.) Liberalism and the Moral Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5.
Barber, B. (1996) ‘Foundationalism and Democracy’, in S. Benhabib (ed.) Democracy and Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6.
Benhabib, S. (1989) ‘Liberal Dialogue Versus a Critical Theory of Discursive Legitimation’, in N. L. Rosenblum (ed.) Liberalism and the Moral Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
Benhabib, S. (1996) ‘Toward a Democratic Model of Democratic Legitimacy’, in S. Benhabib (ed.) Democracy and Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
8.
Bresler, L., L. DeStefano, L. Feldman and S. Garg (1999) ‘Artists-in-Residence in Public Schools’ unpublished manuscript.
9.
Burbules, N. (1993) Dialogue in Teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
10.
Charmez, K. (2000) ‘Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivist Approaches’, in N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Methods, 2nd edn.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
Dewey, J. (1916) Democracy and Education. New York: Free Press.
12.
Gadamer, H.-G. (1982) Truth and Method. New York: Crossroad.
13.
Greene, J. C. (1997) ‘Participatory Evolution’, in L. Mabry (ed.) Evaluation and the PostModern Dilemma, Advances in Program Evaluation 3, pp. 171–190. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
14.
Greene, J. C. (2000) ‘Voices in Conversation? Struggling for Inclusion’, in K. Ryan and L. DeStefano (eds) Evaluation as a Democratic Process: Promoting Inclusion, Dialogue, and Deliberation, New Directions for Evaluation 85, pp. 13–26. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
15.
Greenwood, D. J. and M. Levin (1998) Introduction to Action Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
Gutmann, A. (1987) Democratic Education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
17.
Gutmann, A. (1996) ‘Democracy, Philosophy, and Justification’, in S. Benhabib (ed.) Democracy and Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
18.
Gutmann, A. and D. Thompson (1996) Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
House, E. and K. Howe (1999) Values in Evaluation and Social Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
House, E. and K. Howe (2000) ‘The Deliberative Democratic View’, in K. Ryan and L. DeStefano (eds) Evaluation as a Democratic Process: Promoting Inclusion, Dialogue, and Deliberation, New Directions for Evaluation 85, pp. 3–12. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
21.
Karlsson, O. (1996) ‘A Critical Dialogue in Evaluation: How can the Interaction between Evaluation and Politics be Tackled?’, Evaluation2(4): 405–416.
22.
Karlsson, O. (1998) ‘Socratic Dialogue in the Swedish Political Context’, in T. A. Schwandt (ed.) Scandinavian Perspectives on the Evaluator's Role in Informing Social Policy, New Directions in Evaluation 77, pp. 21–38. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
23.
MacNeil, C. (2000) ‘Surfacing the Realpolitik: Democratic Evaluation in an Anti-democratic Climate’, in K. Ryan and L. DeStefano (eds) Evaluation as a Democratic Process: Promoting Inclusion, Dialogue, and Deliberation, New Directions for Evaluation 85, pp. 51–62. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
24.
Mark, M. , G. Henry and G. Julnes (in press) Evaluation as Assisted Sense-Making. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
25.
Mathison, S. (1996) ‘Evaluation as a Democratizing Force in Schools’, International Journal of Social Education11(1): 40–48.
26.
Mathison, S. (2000) ‘Deliberation, Evaluation, and Democracy’, in K. Ryan and L. DeStefano (eds) Evaluation as a Democratic Process: Promoting Inclusion, Dialogue, and Deliberation, New Directions for Evaluation 85, pp. 85–90. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
27.
Noddings, N. (1984) Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
28.
Polanyi, M. (1966) The Tacit Dimension. Gloucester, MA: P. Smith.
29.
Preskill, H. and R. Torres (1999) Evaluative Inquiry for Learning in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
Rorty, R. (1996) ‘Idealizations, Foundations, and Social Practices’, in S. Benhabib (ed.) Democracy and Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
31.
Ryan, K. and L. DeStefano (2000) ‘Disentangling Dialogue: Issues from Practice’, in K. Ryan and L. DeStefano (eds) Evaluation as a Democratic Process: Promoting Inclusion, Dialogue, and Deliberation, New Directions for Evaluation 85, pp. 63–76. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
32.
Ryan, K. and T. Johnson (2000) ‘Democratizing Evaluation: Meanings and Methods from Practice’, in K. Ryan and L. DeStefano (eds) Evaluation as a Democratic Process: Promoting Inclusion, Dialogue, and Deliberation, New Directions for Evaluation 85, pp. 39–50. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
33.
Ryan, K. , J. C. Greene, Y. Lincoln, S. Mathison and D. Mertons (1998) ‘Advantages and Challenges of Using Inclusive Evaluation Approaches in Evaluation Practice’, American Journal of Evaluation19(1): 101–122.
34.
Ryle, G. (1949) The Concept of Mind. London: Hutchison.
35.
Schwandt, T. A. (1997) ‘Evaluation as Practical Hermeneutics’, Evaluation3(1): 69–83.
36.
Schwandt, T. A. (1999) ‘Dialogue in Evaluation: Philosophy, Theory, Practice’, Panel presented at the Annual Conference of the American Evaluation Association, Orlando, FL, November.
37.
Smith, D. (1987) The Everyday World as a Problematic: A Feminist Sociology. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
38.
Strauss, A. and J. Corbin (1994) ‘Grounded Theory Methodology: An Overview’, in N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39.
Strauss, A. and J. Corbin (1998) Grounded Theory in Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40.
Toulmin, S. (1999) ‘Knowledge as Shared Procedure’, in Y. Engerstrom, R. Miettinen and R. L. Punamaki (eds) Perspectives on Activity Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
