02 Abma et al.

(bc/d) 3/7/01 2:50 pm Page 164

Evaluation
Copyright © 2001
SAGE Publications (London,
Thousand Oaks and New Delhi)
[1356–3890 (200104)7:2; 164–180; 018657]
Vol 7(2): 164–180

Dialogue on Dialogue
TINEKE A. ABMA
Erasmus University, Holland

JENNIFER C. GREENE
University of Illinois, USA

OV E K A R L S S O N
University of Mälardalen, Sweden

K AT H E R I N E RYA N
University of Illinois, USA

T H O M A S A . S C H WA N D T
University of Illinois, USA

G U Y A . M . W I D D E R S H OV E N
University of Maastricht, Holland

The text you are about to read is a dialogical text on dialogue and evaluation.
It is a conversation between a group of scholars who have studied and
published on the concept of dialogue and the value of dialogue for the
practice of evaluation. The text is based on the field notes of a panel meeting
held during a gathering of the European Evaluation Society to discuss this
topic. It also contains an analysis of essays written in preparation for the panel
in answer to the following carefully selected questions. What is your concept
of dialogue? Why do you think dialogue is important for evaluation, especially
for programme evaluation in the public sector and civil society? During an
evaluation, what are the essential characteristics of a meaningful dialogue?
Who participates? What do they talk about? What is the evaluator’s role?
What prior value commitments or facilitating conditions are necessary? What
are desired outcomes? What are the most important cautions we should take
when conducting a more dialogical evaluation and finally, how ‘good’ are the
dialogues we conduct, and what in fact constitutes ‘good’ dialogue?

K E Y WO R D S : cautions; conceptualization of dialogue; issues of concern;

participants in dialogue; relevance of dialogue; role of the evaluator

164
02 Abma et al. (bc/d) 3/7/01 2:50 pm Page 165

Abma et al.: Dialogue on Dialogue

Short Bio-Sketches
Those listed below invested time and energy in helping to create a dialogue and
a text that we believe will set you thinking.

Tineke A. Abma
In her evaluation work Tineke has concentrated on approaches that ‘fit’ with
more interactive styles of policy making and takes a special interest in social con-
structionist and postmodern theories. Her practice is mainly located in the health-
care sector (vocational rehabilitation, palliative care), but she has also conducted
evaluation projects in the field of social revitalization, performing-arts education
and aviation infrastructure.

Jennifer C. Greene
Jennifer has been a scholar-practitioner in the evaluation community for over two
decades. In her work she has concentrated on qualitative-interpretive, partici-
patory-collaborative and mixed-method approaches to evaluation. Her evalu-
ation practice is concentrated in the domains of public programmes for children,
youth and families.

Ove Karlsson
Ove is interested in dialectic methods and critical theory. His evaluation practice
has been mainly in the area of education and policy making focussing on mu-
nicipality and county levels.

Katherine Ryan
Kathy takes a special interest in democratic forms of evaluation. Her evaluation
practice centres around educational programmes. She did not attend the panel in
person and her remarks are based on the essay she submitted.

Thomas A. Schwandt
Tom has mostly written on the philosophical and intellectual traditions that
inform interpretive studies in the social sciences and takes a special interest in the
role of moral concerns and moral inquiry in the social sciences. He is more con-
cerned about evaluation as a human activity than as a professional practice.

Guy A. M. Widdershoven
Guy takes a special interest in hermeneutics and empirical ethics. His evaluation
practice has been in the area of mental-health care and psychiatry. He was not
able to attend the panel. His remarks have been constructed from notes, emails
and letters.

People from the audience

As the conversation unfolded several people from the audience joined in; among
the more active and engaged persons were Hanne Krogstrup (Aalborg Uni-
versity, Denmark), Richard Murray (The Swedish Agency for Administrative
Development, Sweden), Elliot Stern (The Tavistock Institute, UK) and Michael
Patton (University of Minnesota, USA).

165
02 Abma et al. (bc/d) 3/7/01 2:50 pm Page 166

Evaluation 7(2)
Notions and Aims of Dialogue*
Tineke: Let us start with the first question: the conception of dialogue. Tom, in
your essay you presented some provoking ideas about dialogue as a communi-
cative event rather than a method or technique. Could you explain this distinction,
its relevance and implications for evaluation?

Tom: When I talk about dialogue I do not have in mind debates, quarrels or
exchanges of information. Dialogue as a concept can be – and commonly is –
interpreted as a method to resolve differences in order to improve decision
making. We recognize this instrumental approach in the work of House and
Howe.1 Their work is based on the notion that the activity of the evaluator basi-
cally requires something like a ‘good reasons’ approach to making evaluative
judgement. In other words, evaluators should not only present empirical evidence
and deliver a report with their findings, but also engage in a process of delibera-
tion – using reasons, evidence and the principles of valid argumentation to
combine statements of fact and value and reach a reasoned judgement.
It is assumed that the confusion that accompanies conflicting values and inter-
ests will be reduced and that subsequent use of the evaluation will be enhanced,
once evaluators come to understand dialogue as a particular form of argument
well suited for conducting evaluations in democratic societies. Here dialogue and
deliberation are procedures or means to enhance the use of evaluation. Dialogue
is thus defined as persuasion dialogue. The basic goal is to prove a thesis in order
to resolve a dispute or issue.
Based on the ideas of continental philosophers I take a different perspective,
emphasizing the relationship between dialogue and education, in the sense of
Bildung. Education is often cast in instrumentalist terms. It is about acquiring
power and control so that one can tame and order environment, society and self.
To be educated is to be capable of solving problems in these terms. Bildung, on
the other hand, aims at greater understanding of self and others. In line with
Bildung, dialogue in my view is not an instrument for making decisions, but rather
an event that can foster understanding and respect across difference. This alterna-
tive conception of the aim of dialogue is premised on valuing difference and
embracing diversity rather than on seeking unity, convergence and the resolution
of difference. Efforts to reach an evaluative understanding can be ‘useful’ simply
because they help people to come to a clearer understanding of who they and
others are, to a clearer picture of the meaning of their practices and the extent to
which they are morally responsible for their actions. I think that this alternative
conceptualization of dialogue, evaluation and education comes close to the reali-
ties of thinking and doing in everyday life. This conceptualization acknowledges
that we cannot solve every problem and that human activity – including evaluation
– cannot be regulated and controlled.

* As this is a dialogue piece, we do not want to interrupt the flow with references
in the text; unusually therefore the references are in notes following this article.
Additionally, where an author is referred to repeatedly, the same work is referred
to, and therefore only one note for each will appear.

166
02 Abma et al. (bc/d) 3/7/01 2:50 pm Page 167

Abma et al.: Dialogue on Dialogue

Tineke: Perhaps we can use a metaphor to help us imagine what you mean by
dialogue as an educational enterprise. Let me quote Guy.2 He writes:
To me a dialogue is an event that happens to us, which surrounds us as the sea sur-
rounds the fish; we are already engaged in a dialogue before we reflect upon it. We are
immersed in traditions, which support us, but which also narrow our view. According
to Gadamer [German philosopher, TAA] this is not something negative, it is positive:
a rehabilitation of prejudice.3
Guy emphasizes that dialogue is embedded in inherited conversations from the
past. Ove, could you relate that to the thinking of the Russian philosopher
Bakhtin, whom you refer to as a source of inspiration?
Ove: Sure. Bakhtin emphasizes that we are all part of inherited conversations.4
We cannot stand outside these conversations and have to appropriate words to
be able to communicate with others. So if we talk about dialogue, for example,
we are indirectly engaging in a conversation with ancient Greek philosophers,
like Aristotle and Socrates who also wrote about this concept.
Elliot: May I intervene? You really extend and stretch the notion of dialogue a
lot here when you include conversations with Aristotle. Why should we do that?
Ove: Well, Aristotle is, of course, just an example. In one of my evaluation pro-
jects I found this extended notion – that we are able to communicate indirectly –
very useful. It helped me to understand that, besides face-to-face conversations,
stakeholders are capable of responding to and interacting with each other without
any direct, physical encounter. This is possible because they rely on the traditions
and conversations inherited from the past. These conversations connect past and
future.
Jennifer: History matters and tradition is important. In one of my evaluation
projects in a school I saw that it took a very long time for managers, teachers,
parents and children to develop a sort of common notion of the school’s identity.
The tradition they developed helped them to create continuity over time. People
came and went, but the tradition was kept alive in the conversations people had
among themselves.
Tineke: I think the extended notion of dialogue is not only important in helping
us recognize the enabling function of conversations in terms of establishing con-
tinuity of practices, as Jennifer points out, but the extended notion helps us
understand and foster changes in practice as well. Evaluators doing formative
evaluations with the aim of fostering change know that traditions are not only
enabling, but that they can become constraining if the context changes. Inherited
conversations and notions from the past – even if they are no longer appropriate
– structure and guide the actions of practitioners. If we want to foster changes we
cannot simply replace them. We have to work with and reinterpret traditions and
weave new ideas into past conversations because practitioners must be able to
relate to them. If they do not they will not be able to work and act according to
these conversations.
Having talked about indirect dialogues, now may be the time to say something

167
02 Abma et al. (bc/d) 3/7/01 2:50 pm Page 168

Evaluation 7(2)
about direct, face-to-face conversations. Ove, you have done so in your essay with
reference to the work of Buber,5 a Jewish philosopher and Bohm,6 a quantum
physicist. Could you share this with us?

Ove: Bohm talks about a dialogue to distinguish this kind of communication

from an everyday conversation and discussion. An everyday conversation is a
spontaneous movement between asking and answering questions, for example,
‘What were you doing this weekend?’. The aim is to establish, maintain, or
develop social contact. Discussion is the exchange of opinions in a negotiation
context where various people state their reasons or evidence. The aim is to decide
about how it should be. As Bohm says, discussion emphasizes the idea of analy-
sis. He compares it to a Ping-Pong game, where people are batting ideas back and
forth and the object of the game is to win or get points for yourself.
A dialogue, on the other hand, is an exchange of ideas and meanings that devel-
ops our thoughts and helps us to be aware of what we think and how we value
things. In a dialogue nobody is trying to win. Everybody wins if nobody wins. In
a genuine dialogue it is an intrinsic part of the game to form the ‘I’ and the ‘you’,
as a mutual and reciprocal relationship. ‘I’ enter into the dialogue to gain know-
ledge and ‘you’ do the same, and thereby we form a ‘we’ that can help us to learn.
In this relationship ‘I’ do not treat you as an ‘it’, but as a ‘you’ according to Buber.
‘We’ form a horizontal relationship. This does not mean that the goal of a genuine
dialogue is to reach consensus. I think that we have to share our consciousness
and be able to think together in order to do whatever we do intelligently. To learn
we must try to reconsider what other people are saying instead of automatically
defending our thoughts when meeting other opinions. Here I see dialogue as a
platform – a plaza or open space – for an exchange of ideas and a process where
we examine our thoughts in order to understand them.

Tineke: Dialogue as a platform or agora for understanding and learning rather

than judgement and decision making comes very close to Tom’s conceptualization
of dialogue as a pedagogical enterprise. And it seems to me that House and
Howe’s work on dialogue resembles Bohm’s ideas about discussion.
Now we have explored different notions of dialogue, Jennifer, could you share
your ideas about dialogue in the context of evaluation? It seems to me that one
can be in favour of dialogue and good communication, but that this does not
necessarily imply that one will embrace the idea of dialogical evaluation. How do
you see this?

Jennifer: I consider myself an evaluation practitioner and my experiences have

been in the USA. Class and race differences are very high on the political
agenda there, and most public programmes are targeted at these groups. So, in
my work I face the challenge of dealing with diversity. In that context dialogue
appears to be an important notion. Dialogue in the evaluation context refers to
engaged, inclusive and respectful communications among evaluation stakehold-
ers about their respective stances and values, perspectives and experiences,
hopes and dreams, and interpretations of gathered data relevant to what is being
evaluated. Dialogical evaluation enables, even demands engagement with the

168
02 Abma et al. (bc/d) 3/7/01 2:50 pm Page 169

Abma et al.: Dialogue on Dialogue

inter-relational, the moral and the political dimensions of our contexts and our
craft. With effective dialogue, stakeholder interactions governed by role and
status differences and protected through self-interests are replaced by inter-
actions guided by reciprocity, appreciation for the worldviews and interests of
Others and a willingness to make space for their concerns and agendas.
Elliot: You emphasize the importance of stakeholder participation, but doesn’t
dialogue also produce knowledge?
Jennifer: Yes, knowledge may also be an outcome emerging in dialogue, but for
me the concept of dialogue stresses relationships and engagement. So, relation-
ships come first.
Tom: I think dialogical evaluation can serve different functions. Elliot, you
stress the instrumental function and refer to knowledge production. Jennifer, on
the other hand, focuses on the moral–political function of evaluation. And we
have seen that there are other functions as well. We have talked about dialogical
evaluation aimed at the resolution of disputes and the formation of consensus as
proposed by House and Howe. I have presented a conception in which evaluation
is tied to education and is meant to enhance mutual and self-understanding and
respect across differences. Finally there is the idea of evaluation that can foster
a dialogue with tradition across times.
Tineke: I think Tom gave a good summary of what has been said in response to
the question of how we conceptualize dialogue.
Richard: We have heard a lot about dialogue, but it is still unclear to me what
constitutes a good dialogue. Are there criteria and procedures that we could use
in our work?
Tom: I think the answer depends on your definition of dialogue.

Essential Characteristics of a Good Dialogue

Tineke: Let’s further explore the question what constitutes a good dialogue and
talk about what we think are essential characteristics. Tom, you wrote something
about virtues required for a good dialogue.
Tom: Yes, to participate authentically in the event of understanding and a
dialogical relation entails, among other things, good will. The conversation
itself requires that partners must genuinely be interested in understanding one
another. Dialogue also requires two kinds of Socratic virtue. First, the vigilance
of intervention – a disruptive play, a constant probing that disrupts and does
not rest, that does not permit the illusion that meaning is once and for all fixed
and decided. Second, this kind of vigilance – a resistance to the trap of closure
and foundation in understanding – must be tempered by a vigilance of com-
munity presupposed in the conversation.
Tineke: Genuine interest in the other relates to what Guy calls openness. He
emphasizes the process itself – openness and deliberation – rather than the
virtues. But as he also acknowledges, process and virtues are related.

169
02 Abma et al. (bc/d) 3/7/01 2:50 pm Page 170

Evaluation 7(2)
Tom: That is exactly how I see it. Virtues are required to facilitate the process.
Tineke: Jennifer, how does this link in with your ideas?
Jennifer: For me a good dialogue is one in which the participants treat each
other respectfully. Where participants are not simply behaving according to their
role, but where they are actually engaging as persons. Another essential charac-
teristic is the willingness to take risks. In one of my evaluation projects I experi-
enced how difficult it can be to have such a dialogue. Participants were not
listening to each other, they were acting as administrators, professional teachers
and, as evaluators, we weren’t able to change this at all.
Michael: Isn’t this a very particular conceptualization and one that is very white
and middle-class? I have had experiences with groups and cross-cultural dia-
logues. Some groups are used to shouting, yelling or telling you things right in the
face. For them a calm conversation is imprisoning and oppressing; or groups, like
native Americans, who are meandering, bringing in tradition, and tying it to
history and ancestors. Administrators like to be to the point and ask ‘Where is
this leading us?’ and ‘What does this have to do with the topic?’. I also think that
dialogues change over time. I have seen groups going through different stages.
First they need time to get to know each other, so there is a lot of confusion. After
that several conflicts may arise, and if the group handles these conflicts well they
may be able to talk sensibly.
Jennifer: Good points. In the situation I was referring to the white, middle-class
people were the rudest.
Ove: For me a good dialogue requires honesty and non-strategic behaviour. But
perhaps it is easier for us to say what constitutes a bad dialogue than to describe
a good dialogue.
Hanne: This reminds me of Habermas’ ideas about an ideal speech situation:
the non-strategic behaviour and absence of power struggles.7 In many situations
these conditions are not met. In a project with psychiatric patients I asked them
why they liked to come to the group or why they did not want to come. About 80
percent related their answer directly to dialogue. In this situation it was not poss-
ible to bring groups of patients and bureaucrats together because of asymmetri-
cal relationships. Bureaucrats acted defensively saying ‘We know that’ or ‘OK,
but that’s Tom’. They were not taking the patients seriously and were not willing
to learn from their accounts. And then there is the problem of language. English
is, for example, not my native language, and this is a barrier when it comes to
joining the conversation. There are, however, many other subtle ways to exclude
people from conversations. One may not pick up questions because they do not
‘fit’ into one’s structure. Another problem is that evaluators are often seen as
belonging to the establishment. This may prevent people from being open.
Tineke: I recognize your point about subtle ways of excluding people. I have
also worked with psychiatric patients and have had similar experiences to those
you mention. Therapists warning me ‘They will become psychotic if you ask them

170
02 Abma et al. (bc/d) 3/7/01 2:50 pm Page 171

Abma et al.: Dialogue on Dialogue

these questions’ suggesting the patients are not competent to participate in the
evaluation. Besides language, particular ways of speaking – so-called ‘discourses’
– can also effectuate exclusion. In the case I am mentioning the professional
jargon spoken by the therapists had a higher status than the ordinary ways of
speaking by the patients. As a result, in case of conflict the abstract analysis of
the therapists dominated and the anecdotes told by the patients were not vali-
dated.8
I also experienced that it is not always possible to bring people together,
because the environment is not safe enough to speak openly about one’s ideas. I
think this is typical for professional work settings; the asymmetrical relationship
between the all-knowing professional – whether they are therapists, doctors or
teachers – and dependent client. Talking to the groups apart is a good alterna-
tive, although I think that it is also important to bring groups together, either
directly or indirectly, and let them respond to each other. I remember Guy did
the same in a project on enforcing strategies in the psychiatric setting. He first
talked to the staff, patients and family, and then discussed the findings in a series
of collaborative meetings. That resulted in surprising conclusions, if only because
the different parties gained a better understanding of each other’s intentions and
frustrations. He experienced that this was only possible because the evaluators
showed respect for the values of all participants.
The authoritative position of the evaluator may indeed prevent those who feel
vulnerable – those without a name and face – from speaking up. Kathy also
acknowledges this problem when she writes:
To gain understanding of stakeholders’ perspectives, evaluators will need to be closer
to rather than farther away from stakeholders and also be prepared to serve as change
agents if required. Nevertheless, the evaluator and the sponsor are part of what Smith
calls the ‘ruling apparatus’, the familiar complex of management, government adminis-
tration, professions and intelligentsia as well as the textually mediated discourses that
co-ordinate it and penetrate it.9
In the project I was just mentioning I have experienced that it is possible to build
and gain trust among vulnerable groups as an evaluator, if one is prepared to
invest in building a symmetrical relationship along the lines that Ove was talking
about when he referred to Buber. I only started doing interviews after I had
worked for some days with the patients – this was a vocational rehabilitation
project – doing a sort of group-interview, showing interest in their lives and well-
being and deconstructing the notion of an all-knowing expert sent to examine
them.
Is there someone else who wants to respond to Hanne?
Ove: Hanne was right in relating my ideas about a good dialogue to Habermas’
conception of an ideal-speech situation. I am also aware of the asymmetrical
relationships that may prevent such a communication. This does not mean,
however, that it is a worthless ideal. You may strive towards the ideal even though
it is not always necessary and realistic. I think it is not necessary and possible to
have a genuine dialogue all the time. Discussions may occur and these discussions
are not necessarily bad.

171
02 Abma et al. (bc/d) 3/7/01 2:50 pm Page 172

Evaluation 7(2)
Tineke: That is precisely, I think, what Kathy is trying to argue. She emphasizes
the importance of comparing and contrasting various theories about dialogue
with empirical materials reflecting what dialogue looks like in practice. She dis-
tinguishes different dialogical genres including ‘discussion’ and ‘conversation’.
Although she prefers a genuine dialogue, she acknowledges that dialogue in the
form of a debate can also be beneficial.

Participants and Issues of Concern

Tineke: ‘Who should participate in a dialogue?’ is the next question on my list.
Jennifer, you propose to engage and include as many ‘stakeholders’ as possible.
Ove wrote, we should pay special attention to minorities and weak voices. Can
you explain this to us?
Ove: Well, I find this a complicated matter. I do not necessarily think of myself
as an advocate, but I do think it is important to try and deliberately include weak
voices.
Tineke: Do you mean evaluators should create a power balance?
Tom: I think we should distinguish between being an advocate of lots of stand-
points and the advocate of some specific interest. I think Ove refers to the advo-
cate of many standpoints.
Jennifer: In practice that often means that you are considered as an advocate of
a particular group, because the group you are including hasn’t been visible before.
Tineke: That may turn out to be a problem if you are no longer acceptable and
credible for the established stakeholder groups. We have already seen that the
inclusion of as many voices and perspectives is not at all easy given the subtle way
of excluding people. Kathy writes that we should be alert when dialogue partici-
pants refer in conversation to a social segment in the third person; this may be an
indication of social exclusion.10 Think of the therapists talking about psychiatric
patients in terms of ‘they might become psychotic’.
When we talk about participation, I think it is also important, as Jennifer also
points out, to engage participants as concrete people with a name and face versus
parties and stakeholders. Stakeholders and representatives of parties tend to act
strategically and this undermines the conditions for an honest exchange.
Jennifer, you already said something about what participants should talk
about, and I remember you have touched upon this issue before; could you start
off?
Jennifer: Well, I think that a dialogue could address the following things: stances
and values, perspectives and experiences of stakeholders, as well as interpre-
tations of gathered data.
Tineke: Kathy adds to this that one should talk about ‘issues of concern’. In the
context of evaluation these issues may include critical-evaluation activities includ-
ing generating and prioritizing evaluation questions, informing the interpre-
tations of evaluation findings and planning responses to the evaluation findings.

172
02 Abma et al. (bc/d) 3/7/01 2:50 pm Page 173

Abma et al.: Dialogue on Dialogue

In my work as an evaluator I not only stimulate participants in the evaluation
process to talk about substantial differences and interpretations, as Jennifer and
Kathy mention, but I also try to let them examine and reflect on the way they
handle these differences. So I focus on process and relationships as well as roles
and responsibilities. I think this is important, because in many instances partici-
pants do not appear well equipped to acknowledge and use differences. I think
the examples given by Hanne and myself illustrate this well. Therapists and
bureaucrats ignored the experiences of psychiatric patients and did not take other
points of view into consideration. And this is not only the case in psychiatry. In
many other situations problems arise because people are not competent to
manage differences. Contradictory views often become apparent in the process
of evaluation and I see it as my task to help participants to learn how to handle
differences and enhance their competence in this respect. This is not only impor-
tant from a moral point of view – respecting differences and hence different
voices and people – but also in terms of the process. In the longer run it is not
fruitful if certain voices are marginalized.
In my paper for this panel I argue that stories are the most appropriate genre
to use in dialogues, because stories can be interpreted in multiple ways and there-
fore create an open space for ‘negotiation’ between participants.11 Stories address
concrete cases and the experiences of those involved. Contradictory views in and
between stories are hard to obscure. I consider this a positive feature, because
dialogue means that participants explore and raise questions about different
points of view. Compare this with the use of abstract terms and technical lan-
guage, which is known to be a favourite mechanism for masking and pacifying
contradictory views. This is also quite close to what Ove and Guy said about the
importance of talking about experiences versus opinions. Guy put it in this way.
Preferably participants in a dialogue do not talk about opinions, but about real experi-
ences. Only if participants are willing to listen to each other’s experiences and frustra-
tions will room be created for understanding. In addition it is important to realize that
experience not only refers to feelings and emotions, but also to what people have
learned in practice. Being experienced also means knowing what to do in a certain situ-
ation.12

Role and Responsibilities of the Evaluator

Tineke: We come to the question of the role the evaluator plays in a dialogue.
Tom, you see the evaluator as an interpreter rather than an expert. Is that right?
Tom: How we conceive of the evaluator’s role in the conversation of under-
standing depends of course on what we think the practice of evaluation is. The
modernist view sees evaluation as a technological undertaking in which experts
produce knowledge about the value of social practices. This knowledge is then
turned over to practitioners for them to ‘apply’ to their practice. If evaluation is
a moral–political praxis that unfolds in and must embrace rather than eliminate
the inevitable and ineradicable conditions of plurality, uncertainty, difference,
ambiguity, contingency, the endlessly critical and disruptive nature of social life,

173
02 Abma et al. (bc/d) 3/7/01 2:50 pm Page 174

Evaluation 7(2)
then the evaluator’s role as an expert must be re-figured. One suggestion, offered
by Bauman, is that the expert becomes an interpreter.13 The evaluator as inter-
preter does not demonstrate but interprets the experiences and meanings of par-
ticipants in the dialogue. The evaluator may also act as a teacher explaining ideas
to other parties.
Tineke: What you call the teaching role – and what I once referred to as the role
of translator, stressing the importance of helping to clarify the meaning of words
and different vocabularies – is very important because participants are not always
familiar with each other’s cultural vocabulary. In your essay you mentioned the
facilitating role; Guy has done this as well. I think we have already talked about
that role: creating conditions for the process of dialogue, enabling parties to raise
their voices and urging them to listen to one another. In order to stress the impor-
tance of reflecting on the process and how participants deal with differences, I
like to use the term ‘process facilitator’.
Ove, you mentioned the evaluator should act as a ‘critical inquirer’. Could you
share your thoughts with us and explain what you mean by ‘critical’?
Ove: I realize that the role I envisioned is closely related to the idea of
evaluation as a form of social science. The term ‘inquirer’ refers to the process of
gathering and analysing information. ‘Critical’ refers to the comments and
questions an evaluator raises in order to take the dialogue further and to
stimulate self-examination. It is quite similar to what you are doing in this
dialogue: probing into the heart of the matter, asking for explanations and
stimulating reflection on underlying assumptions.
Tineke: This explanation helps. It is surely very different from the associations
that I make when I hear the word ‘critical’. It reminds me of what Tom said about
the Socratic virtue of intervention and what Guy once wrote. Let me quote him.
It seems important that participants are stimulated to examine and probe into each
other’s experiences: what is relevant here for you? That kind of openness is often hard
to realize. It requires the willingness to acknowledge that the other might know some-
thing better than you. It requires a Socratic openness: do we know for sure what we
think we know? But that kind of openness should not lead to an impasse (nothing is
certain . . .) but to an insight into the need for collaboration on the right course of
action.
Kathy wrote something about the responsibilities of the evaluator. She put it as
follows: ‘The evaluator is responsible for balancing many interests including the
interests within which he or she is vested.’ Jennifer, you also mentioned responsi-
bilities related to the dialogical process, and these seem close to Kathy’s ideas.
Could you elaborate on these responsibilities?
Jennifer: Sure. I think the evaluator has two main responsibilities. First, she or
he must provide the interpersonal and analytic space needed for meaningful
stakeholder dialogues. Second, the evaluator must ensure that evaluative claims
are warranted. Let me explain the first responsibility. Our position is one of
engagement with the problems of practice in that evaluative context. We strive
to promote understanding of these problems of practice and to facilitate

174
02 Abma et al. (bc/d) 3/7/01 2:50 pm Page 175

Abma et al.: Dialogue on Dialogue

stakeholder dialogue about them. We insist that such dialogue be inclusive and
guided by norms of equality, reciprocity, tolerance, willingness to listen and
open understanding. We strive for effective and meaningful dialogue via moral
relationships of trust and caring and political relationships of equity and fair-
ness.
The second responsibility follows from the notion of dialogue that legitimizes
multiple forms of expertise and knowledge, including programme-participant
experiential knowledge, practitioner-programme knowledge, decision-maker
policy knowledge as well as the empirical knowledge generated by the evaluator.
Given the dominance of policy knowledge and technical expertise we should be
very keen to legitimize other kinds of knowing, such as street and popular know-
ledge and the knowledge of ancestors. In dialogic evaluation, evaluator or tech-
nical expertise is not privileged over other types of expertise. Rather, the
evaluator contributes the empirical, data-based claims generated in the evalu-
ation to the broader conversation and thereby makes them available to all stake-
holder participants for review and discussion. The important dialogue then takes
place among stakeholder-participants each of whom has particular perspectives
and values.
So, the evaluator is responsible for the inclusion of multiple stakeholder inter-
ests and a respectful dialogue among those interests in order to render meaning-
ful evaluative claims about the evaluandum. Inclusion becomes constitutive of
warrant, and evaluative claims that exclude some interests or have been devel-
oped and presented through a monologic rather than a dialogic process are
neither complete nor warranted.

Outcomes
Tineke: In the existing literature on dialogue and evaluation, dialogue is often
associated with resolving different viewpoints and reaching consensus. Tom
already referred to the work of House and Howe. You presented an alternative
notion of dialogue and other aims. Could you elaborate on that in terms of poss-
ible outcomes?
Tom: You are right. I think the outcome of dialogue is understanding. However,
this can take a variety of forms and need not necessarily involve agreement and
consensus. Understanding might include common understanding versus agree-
ment. Here participants in the dialogue do not agree but establish common mean-
ings in which to discuss their differences. The second kind of understanding is the
understanding of differences versus a common understanding: participants
understand but do not entirely bridge these differences. However, through analo-
gies of experience or other indirect translations they can at least partially under-
stand each other’s position. The third form of understanding is respect across
differences. Each participant sees that the other has a thoughtful, conscientious
position and participants come to appreciate and respect these positions even
though they may disagree with them. The Socratic virtues I mentioned earlier are
an important way of keeping the conversation open.

175
02 Abma et al. (bc/d) 3/7/01 2:50 pm Page 176

Evaluation 7(2)
Tineke: The idea of keeping the conversation open relates to the postmodern
critique of consensus. In line with postmodern thinkers I have argued that striv-
ing towards consensus may be dangerous, because it can easily lead to differences
being neglected and the voices of the marginalized or weak remaining unheard.
I think it might be better to define the outcome of a dialogue in negative terms:
the exclusion and marginalization of voices, and hence of people. In this respect
I really like what Hanne and Ove meant when they said it was probably easier to
define a bad dialogue than a good one.
Guy has criticized this position.14 In line with the work of Gadamer he thinks
a dialogue will result in a ‘fusion of horizons’, but he acknowledges that under-
standing – in the sense of common understanding – is always fragmentary and in
danger of collapse. Failures in understanding are not necessarily problematic;
they can direct us towards other possibilities and invoke a process of learning. He
does not, however, want to give up the notion of consensus and in one of our com-
munications about this issue he explained his view on the relation between differ-
ences and consensus as follows:
I think that hermeneutics and postmodernism are closer than often is considered. Con-
sensus requires contradiction and difference. The existence of other views stimulates
further thinking and searching. Consensus is always temporary, new differences can and
will arise that will disrupt the balance and require new movements. One can learn from
differences. In the context of evaluation one needs to create room for differences and
conflicts. From my perspective it seems crucial to urge parties to listen to each other.15

Jennifer, what I particularly liked about your list of outcomes and what hasn’t
been mentioned is the emphasis on developing better relationships. What do you
have in mind?
Jennifer: One of the possible outcomes is the development of agentic, respect-
ful, trusting, reciprocal relationships among diverse stakeholders – the re-engage-
ment of caring and moral purpose in our inter-relationships with one another and
in our conversations about public issues. Other outcomes I envision include: the
surfacing of diverse stakeholder interests and perspectives, values related to the
evaluand, the generation of evaluative claims that are warranted by inclusion, and
the relocation of evaluation from an instrumental, expert-controlled activity to
an activity that embraces dialogue as a way of engagement with the world.

Cautions
Tineke: It seems to me that everyone has said something about lack of accept-
ance in the evaluation community and society at large. Ove, you talk about the
difficulty of explaining the value of the concept for evaluation practice. Please
explain this concern, its background and the risks you see.
Ove: I indeed think that dialogue is a difficult concept to communicate to the
field of evaluation and there is a danger of it being used in an instrumental way.
The usual rationale for evaluation is that it is a process whereby you collect infor-
mation and present criteria against which information can be judged in order to

176
02 Abma et al. (bc/d) 3/7/01 2:50 pm Page 177

Abma et al.: Dialogue on Dialogue

select a winner. Another way of looking at evaluation is to see it as a process, a
platform for reconsideration, learning and developing new thoughts about the
problem, not in a judgmental way but simply to learn more about it. The latter is
probably a conception of evaluation that goes far beyond the dominant idea and
rationale for evaluation in terms of judging merit and worth. Against this back-
ground, one problem with dialogical evaluation could be to explain and develop
a meaningful conception of what it is in a way that would convince users to count
it as an evaluation model or approach.
Dialogical evaluation could be seen as something for philosophers and
researchers and not as something that can give decision makers the answers they
need.
Another caution is that dialogical evaluation gives the participants a lot to
think about if they are open-minded and willing to really participate. There is a
possible risk of ‘over-information’ here; participants may feel they have devel-
oped a greater insight and knowledge about the evaluated, but as a result they
may feel more uncertain than before about what they should do. While this is a
good insight for learning, it will not be sufficient to convince those who need to
make decisions and choices to use dialogical evaluation.

Tineke: I recognize your concern about the difficulty of the concept. People
have asked me many times “But is this an evaluation?” after I had presented one
of my evaluation projects. I think that question directly relates to the dominant
conception of and rationale for evaluation. Tom, I think you see other dangers.

Tom: One of the many dangers we should always be aware of in our efforts to
have a genuine conversation is the mistaken belief that understanding arises in
the first instance from the individual subject who thinks, rather than from the
other – someone or something foreign or unfamiliar – that addresses me. Under-
standing, conversation or dialogue, is the encounter with something that asserts
its claims on me.

Tineke: I agree with that. Dialogue assumes understanding is a relational and col-
lective act while our science and culture is marked by individualism. So, we face
the challenge of creating a context in a (scientific) culture that does not welcome
dialogue and its underlying values. What also seems important for the quality of
dialogue is the art of listening, of giving conversation space to other participants
and of tolerating silences. These values are not much appreciated in our contem-
porary Western culture. Speaking up is more important than listening; loudness
dominates silence; action is valued over reflection. I think people can learn the
qualities of a genuine dialogue, but dialogue cannot be applied like a recipe from
a cookbook. Techniques and recipes do not require thinking, and that’s what
makes them convenient and appropriate for the reproduction of routine solutions
and actions. Techniques are, however, not very suitable for creating breakthrough
thinking or listening in a diverse group of people. This requires a combination of
skill, craft and art. Therefore, I like to think of dialogue as a ‘living art’, ‘living’,
because it is an interactive process; it is shaped by and shapes those who engage
in it.16 Jennifer, do you recognize this and what would you like to add?

177
02 Abma et al. (bc/d) 3/7/01 2:50 pm Page 178

Evaluation 7(2)
Jennifer: Let me first share an observation. I find it interesting that in this era of
increasing technological communications – where on-line educational oppor-
tunities are expanding exponentially and walkways and airways everywhere are
filled with the beeps of cellular phones – evaluators and other social scientists are
turning to dialogue, to a recapturing of meaningful and engaged human inter-
actions. One caution I notice has already been discussed, namely the lack of
acceptance within the evaluation community and larger society. Ove rightly
pointed out that this kind of evaluation implies a loss of other important func-
tions and roles of evaluation like the provision of credible and impartial evidence
for decision making. Other cautions are few evaluators have the skills and sensi-
bilities to conduct meaningful dialogic evaluation. I am thinking in particular of
the subtle ways of exclusion and difficulties related to diversity.
Tineke: It is an interesting paradox you observe, and I see a danger that relates
to the increasing use of virtual communication technologies. It may lead to a
neglect of the embodied qualities of dialogue: the tone, texture of voices, as-
sociative character of conversations. Meaning is not only derived from the
content of language, but also implied in ways of speaking and non-linguistic com-
munication (e.g. body language, gestures).
Several of us mention the lack of willingness to participate among those who
feel superior or inferior. We have already talked extensively about power imbal-
ances and how to handle these. Dialogue assumes symmetrical relationships. In
many situations we encounter power imbalances, and these create at least two
challenges. How, for example, can we motivate those who may lose power and
influence to join the process and how can the voices of the marginalized be
included? The answer to the first question is complicated by the fact that the
nature of dialogue is such that it cannot be enforced. We can only invite people
to join us, and not force them to do so. The answer to the second question is com-
plicated by the ambivalent feelings a dialogue may evoke when it is presented as
a step towards gaining more autonomy. Can we hold that promise? There is the
danger of using dialogue as another technique that will coerce people in a more
subtle way and where people are not encountered as human beings who are com-
petent and necessary for the process, but as necessary components in the process
of creating commitment for preconceived outcomes. Evaluators have a responsi-
bility to prevent such an instrumental use and to avoid forms of pseudo-partici-
pation.
Tom: You are quite right. It has struck me that much of the current Anglo–
American literature on dialogue in evaluation has an instrumental orientation.
Like I said earlier, we may also redefine ‘use’ in terms of better understanding,
as a step in becoming different sorts of people with different sorts of social
arrangements. Americans are not very familiar with that idea. The Swedes and
Norwegians, on the other hand, have a tradition of debate and discussion to
enhance understanding. Dialogue is grounded in the fabric of their societies.
Ove nods . . .

178
02 Abma et al. (bc/d) 3/7/01 2:50 pm Page 179

Abma et al.: Dialogue on Dialogue

Reflection
Tineke: It is time to end this conversation. We have tried to disentangle some
of the complexity and different meanings associated with dialogue and its
relevance for evaluation. I now want to invite the audience to give us some feed-
back to the question of whether or not this was a good dialogue. Do you want to
share ideas?
Participant #1: I think it was enjoyable and I learned a lot. I think the format
suited the topic very well, and you were clearly more than just talking heads. I
am working as an internal evaluator and I think this is important for my work.
Dialogical evaluation could function as a mirror in this context.
Participant #2: I came in later, and what strikes me is that this room is less
crowed than the one on methods. It also seems that there are more, older people
in this room. Are they more interested in this topic?
Tineke: I share your observation about the amount of participants. To be honest
I had expected more people, although I also realize that several people wanted
to come but had other obligations. It is probably an approval of Ove’s concern
that dialogue is hard to communicate.
Participant #3: I also came in later and I wonder whether or not you talked
about instruments.

Tineke: Well, we talked about how to facilitate the dialogical process and the
role of the evaluator. You might find it interesting to read Ove’s work on the value
of artistic methods, such as the use of metaphors and performance theatre and
story workshops.17, 18

Participant #4: Let me play the devil’s advocate. We have been here for almost
two hours, and this is the first time you have asked the audience what they think.
Isn’t that a little late? I mean, if you talk about dialogue and inclusion shouldn’t
the public participate?

Tineke: Our aim was not to have a conversation with the audience, but a
dialogue amongst ourselves. You could have joined in earlier on as other people
did.

Participant #5: What I missed is how you handle pressure and non-pressure
groups in a dialogue.

Tineke: I think we talked about the participation of different stakeholders,

including interest groups, citizens, participants, staff and policymakers, and
imbalances. But you are right, we did not pay special attention to the strategic
behaviour often performed by pressure groups.

Participant #6: As has been pointed out one of the most important things is to
keep the conversation open and fluid. What I missed in this respect is an open
approach to power relationships. Why fix these relations?

179
02 Abma et al. (bc/d) 3/7/01 2:50 pm Page 180

Evaluation 7(2)
Tineke: Interesting point. Thank you. Thank you for your attention and contri-
bution to the conversation. The critical issues raised have clearly added to the
depth and breadth of our understanding, and I hope you appreciated it.
Hanne: Sure. What about you folks, did you enjoy it?

Notes
1. Where we refer to House and Howe we have the following work in mind: House, E.
R. and K. R. Howe (1999) Values in Evaluation and Social Research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
2. Widdershoven, G. A. M. (2000) Essay written for the panel on ‘Dialogue and/in
Evaluation’ at the Fourth Conference of the European Evaluation Society: Taking
Evaluation to the People, Lausanne, 12–14 October.
3. Where we refer to Gadamer we have the following work in mind: Gadamer, H.-G.
(1960) Wahrheit und Methode. Tübingen: Mohr.
4. Where we refer to Bakhtin we have the following work in mind: Bakhtin, M.
(1953/1980) The Dialogic Imagination. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
5. Where we refer to Buber we have the following works in mind: Buber, M. (1961)
Between Man and Man. London: Collins.
6. Where we refer to Bohm we have the following work in mind: Bohm, D. (1996) On
Dialogue. London: Routledge.
7. Where we refer to Habermas we have the following work in mind: Habermas, J. (1991)
Erläuterungen zur Diskursethik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
8. Abma, T. A. (1998) ‘Storytelling as Inquiry in a Mental Hospital’, Qualitative Health
Research 8(6): 821–38.
9. Smith, D. (1987) The Everyday World as a Problematic: A Feminist Sociology. Boston,
MA: Northeastern University Press.
10. Ryan, K. (2000) Essay written for the panel on ‘Dialogue and/in Evaluation’ at the
Fourth Conference of the European Evaluation Society: Taking Evaluation to the
People, Lausanne, 12–14 October.
11. Abma, T. A. (2000) Essay written for the panel on ‘Dialogue and/in Evaluation’ at the
Fourth Conference of the European Evaluation Society: Taking Evaluation to the
People, Lausanne, 12–14 October.
12. Widdershoven, G. A. M. (2000) Personal letter in response to Abma.
13. Bauman, Z. (1987) Interpreters and Legislators: On Modernity, Postmodernity and
Intellectuals. Oxford: Polity Press.
14. See Widdershoven, this issue.
15. Widdershoven, G. A. M. (2000) Personal letter in response to Abma.
16. Ellinor, L. and G. Gerard (1998) Dialogue: Rediscovering the Transformative Power of
Conversation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
17. See Karlsson, this issue.
18. See Abma, this issue.

180