account paying attention to detail of the situation (produce a story text);
Isaacs (1993, p. 25) describes dialogue as:
a discipline of collective thinking and inquiry, a process for transforming the quality of conversation and, in particular, the thinking that lies beneath it… a movement towards creating a field of genuine meeting and inquiry where people can allow a free flow of meaning and vigorous exploration of the collective background of their thought, their personal pre‐dispositions, the nature of their shared attention, and the rigid features of their individual and collective assumptions. As people learn to perceive, inquire into, and allow transformation of the nature and shape of these fields, and the patterns of individual thinking and acting that inform them, they may discover entirely new levels of insight and forge substantive and, at times, dramatic changes in behaviour. As this happens, whole new possibilities for coordinated action develop.
Dialogue is not a natural form of communication, especially within organisations.
Isaacs notes (1993, p. 24):
Most forms of organisational conversation, particularly around tough, complex, or challenging issues lapse into debate (the root of which means ‘to beat down’). In debate one side wins and another loses; both parties maintain their certainties, and both suppress deeper inquiry. Debate reflects patterns of power relationships and rivalry, where people jostle for control typified by people lining up to get their point across and win the argument. Very little genuine listening takes. People partially listen to what they want to hear, seeking feedback to reinforce their position rather than be open to new possibility through dialogue.
Six Rules of Dialogue
It is significant that practitioners and guides become skilful in dialogue. Bohm discerned six rules of dialogue:
1 Commitment to work with others towards consensus for a better world
2 Awareness and suspension of one’s own assumptions and prejudices
3 Proprioception of thinking
4 To be open to possibility and free from attachment to ideas
5 To listen with engagement and respect
6 To have a mutual appreciation of dialogue
Dialogue can be with oneself or within groups of people. It always moves towards consensus for a better world. The emphasis on moving towards acknowledges a letting go of attachment to old ideas. The idea of a better world suggests all action is moral, social action towards this end. To dialogue, people must not only know and suspend their assumptions and opinions but also be aware of the thinking that gave rise to these assumptions in the first place. Where do they arise from? How tenacious do we cling to them? Why do we cling to them? This requires proprioception of thinking, an awareness of where the mind is at the moment. Within the dialogical process, there is a shift from problem‐solving towards acknowledging and resolving paradox that requires thinking about the way people think about things. If we use the same thinking that caused the problem to try and solve the problem, we fail. Hence we need to change the way we think to view the problem differently. As Bohm (1996, p. 25) writes:
We could say that practically all the problems of the human race are due to the fact that thought is not proprioceptive. Thought is constantly creating problems that way and then trying to solve them. But as it tries to solve them it makes it worse because it doesn’t notice that it’s creating them, and the more it thinks, the more problems it creates – because it’s not proprioceptive of what it’s doing.
Only then can people transform their perspectives to see things differently. Dialogue is listening. Only when people really listen can they hear what is being said or not being said. Yet listening seems a rare quality in the patterns of talk that dominate practice and education. Do we listen to what we want to hear, or distorting what we hear in order to fit into our own scheme, to confirm our own assumptions? Finally, it requires that those involved in dialogue have a mutual appreciation of dialogue and ensure when in dialogue with others that the dialogical rules are both known and nurtured.
Developing the Reflective Attitude
To engage reflection, the reflective practitioner will benefit from developing a ‘reflective attitude’ to enhance its learning potential. Fay (1987) identified certain qualities of mind that are pre‐requisite to reflection: curiosity, commitment, and intelligence. These are significant to counter more negative qualities of mind associated with defensiveness, habit, resistance, and ignorance.
Commitment
Commitment is energy that sparks life. Yet, for many practitioners, commitment to their practice has become numb or blunted through working in non‐challenging, non‐supportive, and generally stressful environments, where work satisfaction is making it through work with minimal hassle. These practitioners do not enjoy reflection. They turn their heads away from the reflective mirror because the reflected images are not positive. They do not want to face themselves and accept responsibility for their practice. Things wither and die if not cared for. When those things are people, then the significance of commitment is only too apparent. Commitment is the energy that helps practitioners face up to difficult situations. The small child is ambivalent about learning to walk; it stumbles and falls, it hurts itself. It is a painful process. Yet, the satisfaction of developing its potential far outweighs the bumps and bruises (Rogers 1969).
Curiosity
Curiosity is self‐inquiry, questioning who I am and what I do. It is the opening up of possibility. Gadamer (1975, p. 266) writes:
The opening up and keeping open of possibilities is only possible because we find ourselves deeply interested in that which makes the question possible in the first place. To truly question something is to interrogate something from the threat of our existence, from the centre of our being.
Curiosity is fundamental to the creative life and yet many practitioners are locked into habitual patterns of practice. Often, when things get overly familiar, we take them for granted and get into a habitual groove. Curiosity is turning over pebbles, wondering what lies on the other side, while open to the possibilities of viewing the same thing from different perspectives. Curiosity helps us pay attention as if the experience is new.
Loori (2005, p. 74) writes:
when we truly pay attention, we see each object or situation for the first time‐ and it always seems fresh and new, no matter how many times we’ve encountered it before. We
