Your comment about silence is interesting Cindy. We are increasingly governed by our expectations about the rhythms of online interaction. How many of us in our work in online forums have written or unwritten guidelines about response times, 48 hour rules and so on? When there is silence it makes us uneasy, silence online remains hard to interpret, and we tend to worry whether we could have done more.
I am not sure that this is the case here. I spent a couple of days last week deliberately avoiding this forum because I knew I would want to read and think about all the posts, and I didnt have the time! Then perhaps more importantly when I did I needed time to reflect before posting. So in my case silence has been more due to the richness of the discussion :)
In answer to what you said about the buzz, I have found nothing so exciting online as some of the conversations I have participated in online, in forums or on lists, over the years, some of which could even be called dialogue!!!
Nick Kearney
Posts made by Nick Kearney
In this forum so far, I have the sense that there may be different understandings of the term dialogue. At some points my interpretation has been that we are talking about any interaction in online contexts, and using the term dialogue to label that. At others we seem to be closer to the idea of "dialogue" in the tradition of Bohm, or Gadamer, who was mentioned earlier. While there are distinctions within that tradition, I think the larger distinction between terms like interaction, or discussion or even perhaps conversation, and the concept of dialogue is important.
Dialogue in that tradition is very much focused on equality of participation, there is a democratic spirit to it that sits uneasily with much of the literature on the "management" of online forums, where the objective appears to be, in some cases, the manipulation of the learners. It may be that, as some have suggested here, this should be the objective, that our role is to direct a series of interactions that bear a resemblance to dialogue. It may be that we should always maintain control. I don't think I agree.
As Andrew points out, in education there is a need for a teacher who provides value of some kind for the learner, and there is a balancing act involved in the teacher's intervention in online discussion. It seems to me that, if we are talking about dialogue, as opposed to discussion, then this balancing act has to do with creating the conditions in which dialogue can emerge. However, when it has emerged perhaps the secret is knowing when to let go and allow the dialogue to develop. At that point to "lead" may stifle it, and hinder the transformation that Cindy mentions in another post.
As (a brief) answer to Nancy's question: "When do we know when we are in a state of dialogue?" I am not certain either, but I would suggest that it may be when we no longer have the sense of directing the process, when we do not know where it will take us, because we are still listening to the other participants. In other words, in a state of dialogue, we have relinquished control. How does that sit with the way we understand the role of teacher? I guess this is where the balancing act becomes hardest.
Perhaps the issue is about how to create a space for dialogue, in which we can engage as participants, (suspending the "teacher" role temporarily) and in that process of creating the space, it may be that the the kind of "leadership" that has been mentioned may be of use, though I have to confess that I don't see the word "leader" as useful. However much we pummel it into new shapes in order to redefine it, it still smells the same.
As Nancy says, a key issue is that many of us may not necessarily have dialogue skills offline or on, and this may apply to the learners as well. Learning to get the most out of online learning may perhaps involve learning to "dialogue".
Dialogue in that tradition is very much focused on equality of participation, there is a democratic spirit to it that sits uneasily with much of the literature on the "management" of online forums, where the objective appears to be, in some cases, the manipulation of the learners. It may be that, as some have suggested here, this should be the objective, that our role is to direct a series of interactions that bear a resemblance to dialogue. It may be that we should always maintain control. I don't think I agree.
As Andrew points out, in education there is a need for a teacher who provides value of some kind for the learner, and there is a balancing act involved in the teacher's intervention in online discussion. It seems to me that, if we are talking about dialogue, as opposed to discussion, then this balancing act has to do with creating the conditions in which dialogue can emerge. However, when it has emerged perhaps the secret is knowing when to let go and allow the dialogue to develop. At that point to "lead" may stifle it, and hinder the transformation that Cindy mentions in another post.
As (a brief) answer to Nancy's question: "When do we know when we are in a state of dialogue?" I am not certain either, but I would suggest that it may be when we no longer have the sense of directing the process, when we do not know where it will take us, because we are still listening to the other participants. In other words, in a state of dialogue, we have relinquished control. How does that sit with the way we understand the role of teacher? I guess this is where the balancing act becomes hardest.
Perhaps the issue is about how to create a space for dialogue, in which we can engage as participants, (suspending the "teacher" role temporarily) and in that process of creating the space, it may be that the the kind of "leadership" that has been mentioned may be of use, though I have to confess that I don't see the word "leader" as useful. However much we pummel it into new shapes in order to redefine it, it still smells the same.
As Nancy says, a key issue is that many of us may not necessarily have dialogue skills offline or on, and this may apply to the learners as well. Learning to get the most out of online learning may perhaps involve learning to "dialogue".
Hi,
This is great Derek!! Thanks for your rich response. And I though I am not sure what others may think (and I havent returned to the papers yet either :) ) I think you are taking the issue to the marrow.
I believe the way dialogue works or not has a lot to do with the words and meanings we use. And when we use the word "leader" we are saying, I think, that there is a privileged voice, that is listened to above others. Bohm centres on the idea of the facilitator. I dont feel the idea of leading from behind helps, the leader may play equal, may even make the coffee for others, but if they are seen as the leader, their views will be assimilated and acted on, whether explicit or implicit (participants will tend to anticipate even the silent leaders wishes, as they interpret them). I am not sure that this is dialogue, as Bohm understands it. But I guess that has a lot more to do with how I understand Bohm!!
I brought up leadership for a very clear reason, and I had hoped to read the papers again before commenting further, but the river moves on:). To me the question of leadership is fundamental; leadership implies a privileged voice. In other words leadership as function is the same as leadership as status. You may not wish it but those who accord you the function of leader will accord you the status of leader.
I see this as one of the key issues for anyone involved in education who is seriously interested in learner-centred approaches. How do we really, I mean really- no disguises, no rhetoric - relinquish that leadership role? Is that possible in an institution?
Or are we simply appropriating and subtly devaluing another marvellous, though immensely difficult approach to human interaction, and learning, for other (um, lets just call them "other" :) ) purposes? Albeit despite ourselves?
Though I find the endeavour to reclaim the term wonderful, I also see it as quixotic. I feel that the weight of the leadership literature is too heavy to avoid other interpretations, the term is very clearly framed and that framing conflates status with function and visa versa. I would argue that vocabulary matters, however much we may wish it otherwise. I would support a search for other terms to describe the role of the facilitator. And I cant say that emergent or servant leadership are terms that solve the issue, it continues to be leadership. And neither the hero nor the host has relinquished control, there is only a modulation in the nature of the control. I would see the search as a search for a word that expresses the way control disappears.
In addition to this, I would question whether the knowledge (and execution) of methodology, (that others within the dialogue may not have) automatically confers the status or even the function of leader, and furthermore whether, when others any wish to accord this status or function, it should be accepted.
I guess the question I would ask relates to the statement:
Leadership that holds onto itself and it's goals in the wrong way hinders dialogue.
I would also ask, is there a right way to hold onto yourself and your goals? In dialogue? To what extent does the idea of suspension allow us to hold on? My interpretation has always been that suspension involves stepping outside, a separation or a voluntary relinquishment of one's objectives. Rather like jumping off a high building :)
All the best
Nick
This is great Derek!! Thanks for your rich response. And I though I am not sure what others may think (and I havent returned to the papers yet either :) ) I think you are taking the issue to the marrow.
I believe the way dialogue works or not has a lot to do with the words and meanings we use. And when we use the word "leader" we are saying, I think, that there is a privileged voice, that is listened to above others. Bohm centres on the idea of the facilitator. I dont feel the idea of leading from behind helps, the leader may play equal, may even make the coffee for others, but if they are seen as the leader, their views will be assimilated and acted on, whether explicit or implicit (participants will tend to anticipate even the silent leaders wishes, as they interpret them). I am not sure that this is dialogue, as Bohm understands it. But I guess that has a lot more to do with how I understand Bohm!!
I brought up leadership for a very clear reason, and I had hoped to read the papers again before commenting further, but the river moves on:). To me the question of leadership is fundamental; leadership implies a privileged voice. In other words leadership as function is the same as leadership as status. You may not wish it but those who accord you the function of leader will accord you the status of leader.
I see this as one of the key issues for anyone involved in education who is seriously interested in learner-centred approaches. How do we really, I mean really- no disguises, no rhetoric - relinquish that leadership role? Is that possible in an institution?
Or are we simply appropriating and subtly devaluing another marvellous, though immensely difficult approach to human interaction, and learning, for other (um, lets just call them "other" :) ) purposes? Albeit despite ourselves?
Though I find the endeavour to reclaim the term wonderful, I also see it as quixotic. I feel that the weight of the leadership literature is too heavy to avoid other interpretations, the term is very clearly framed and that framing conflates status with function and visa versa. I would argue that vocabulary matters, however much we may wish it otherwise. I would support a search for other terms to describe the role of the facilitator. And I cant say that emergent or servant leadership are terms that solve the issue, it continues to be leadership. And neither the hero nor the host has relinquished control, there is only a modulation in the nature of the control. I would see the search as a search for a word that expresses the way control disappears.
In addition to this, I would question whether the knowledge (and execution) of methodology, (that others within the dialogue may not have) automatically confers the status or even the function of leader, and furthermore whether, when others any wish to accord this status or function, it should be accepted.
I guess the question I would ask relates to the statement:
Leadership that holds onto itself and it's goals in the wrong way hinders dialogue.
I would also ask, is there a right way to hold onto yourself and your goals? In dialogue? To what extent does the idea of suspension allow us to hold on? My interpretation has always been that suspension involves stepping outside, a separation or a voluntary relinquishment of one's objectives. Rather like jumping off a high building :)
All the best
Nick
Hello Cindy,
I have been looking forward to this seminar. So much so that I am taking time out for a moment to touch base (the importance of presence...) as I am not sure how much time I will have to participate before the weekend.
I have been working with a colleague for some months on the idea of dialogue in online contexts. My first reaction to your introduction, very much off the cuff, is to the word "leadership". I wonder how it fits with the concept of dialogue for you.
I guess my reaction probably has a lot to do with the way I understand dialogue, and how I understand the word "leadership". But before commenting further on that reaction (stating that I have an initial reaction is of course a comment in itself!) I am going to return to the papers...:)
All the best
Nick Kearney
I have been looking forward to this seminar. So much so that I am taking time out for a moment to touch base (the importance of presence...) as I am not sure how much time I will have to participate before the weekend.
I have been working with a colleague for some months on the idea of dialogue in online contexts. My first reaction to your introduction, very much off the cuff, is to the word "leadership". I wonder how it fits with the concept of dialogue for you.
I guess my reaction probably has a lot to do with the way I understand dialogue, and how I understand the word "leadership". But before commenting further on that reaction (stating that I have an initial reaction is of course a comment in itself!) I am going to return to the papers...:)
All the best
Nick Kearney
There was no time to script graffiti I guess Corinne, or a parking ticket. :) That police car was right up on the kerb!!! Terrible parking!!!