| This research is an analysis and summary of the field of dialogue. It seeks to determine whether dialogue can be considered a field of study and, if so, what defines it and from where does it emerge. While many individuals often speak of an existing field of study and practice, there has been no systematic overview of its roots, history or structure. For the practice and theory to evolve, such a review is of critical importance.; The study develops and uses a dialogic methodology of inquiry based on the paradigm structure proposed by Lincoln and Guba (2000). It blends three alternative inquiry paradigms, critical theory, constructivism, and participatory inquiry, into an appropriate and relevant dialogic research paradigm. Data were obtained through interviews of key dialogue leaders, a review of primary research and writings, correspondence, listservs and websites of communities of dialogic practice, and personal immersion into the dialogue community.; The study begins with an exposition on the characteristics of a field of study, relying primarily on the analysis of Kuhn (1970) and Handy (1973). It then defines what is meant by dialogue, contrasting it with other forms of human verbal communication.; The paper outlines the various disciplines and thinking that have had a major impact on the development of the field of Dialogue. These include Philosophy, Theology and Spirituality, Group Dynamics and Organizational Development, Psychology, General Systems Theory, and Quantum Physics, among others. In addition, it shows the various historical threads of thinking that have emerged from individuals such as Bohm, Lewin and Bion, Rogers, Jung, Freire, and from within indigenous communities, spiritual communities that practice communal discernment, Chautauqua/Salons, and affective neuroscience. It also lays out an historical timeline of the field, identifying seven primary stages.; The research proposes a taxonomy of the field, drawing from the work of Briand, (2004), Heierbacher (2003, 2004), Wilson (2004) and Zuniga & Nagda (2001).; Finally, there is a critique of the field itself and recommendations for how the field might more intentionally evolve. |
