Effects of a dialogue method applied in an interdisciplinary group in the environmental fieldAbstract
This research sought to contribute to a deeper understanding of the effects of methodologies that foster dialogue learning. To this end, we analyzed the effects of a dialogue method applied in a thematic research project carried out in Brazil and funded by FAPESP. The project brought together several researchers from different fields of knowledge to work together toward new environmental governance. Using qualitative approach and intervention research principles, the dialogue method was tested throughout a course, and data were collected through questionnaires, participant observation, researcher-written documents, transcribed recordings of the course sessions, and participant logbooks. The analyses sought to identity three types of effects: cognitive changes, relational changes, and collaborative actions. As the research progressed, the findings indicated that the dialogue method promoted cognitive and relational changes in the researchers. On the other hand, no evidence of collaborative actions emerging among them was found. These results have interesting implications for the continued development of studies on the dialogue learning process and its effects, especially in relation to the method investigated in this research.
Keywords:
Dialogue - Method - Effects - Scientific collaboration - Interdisciplinarity
Resumo
Esta pesquisa buscou contribuir para o aprofundamento de conhecimentos sobre efeitos advindos de metodologias que estimulam a aprendizagem do diálogo. Para isso, foram analisados efeitos de um método de diálogo aplicado em um projeto temático de pesquisa, realizado no Brasil e financiado pela FAPESP, que agregou diversos pesquisadores de diferentes áreas do saber para trabalharem juntos em prol de uma nova governança ambiental. A partir de abordagem qualitativa e de princípios da pesquisa do tipo intervenção, o teste do método de diálogo ocorreu ao longo de um curso e os dados foram coletados por meio de questionários, de observação participante, de documentos escritos pelos pesquisadores, de gravações transcritas do curso e de diários de bordo produzidos pelos participantes. As análises foram realizadas com o propósito de identificar três tipos de efeitos: mudanças cognitivas, mudanças relacionais e ações colaborativas. Com o desenvolvimento da pesquisa, foi possível verificar que o método de diálogo estimulou mudanças cognitivas e relacionais nos pesquisadores. Por outro lado, não foram encontrados indícios da emergência de ações colaborativas entre eles. Tais resultados trazem implicações interessantes para a continuidade do desenvolvimento de estudos sobre o processo de aprendizagem do diálogo e seus efeitos, especialmente em relação ao método investigado nesta pesquisa.
Palavras-chave:
Diálogo - Método - Efeitos - Colaboração científica - Interdisciplinaridade.
Introduction
Despite the recognized scientific and technological advances that have helped us improve various aspects of human life, modern culture has simultaneously given rise to a fragmented way of thinking and organizing social life. In this context, societies have been divided into nations, nature perceived as a collection of resources to be exploited, and individuals segmented according to their preferences, ambitions, and physical and psychological characteristics (Bohm, 1980; Morin, 2003).
This generalization of this fragmentation process has had serious consequences, promoting a vicious and endless cycle of chaotic and meaningless conflicts, where everyone’s energies tend to be lost in antagonistic movements or disagreements (Bohm, 1980, p. 38), which has contributed to the outbreak of a series of social, cultural, economic, political, environmental, and other crises.
This problem affects different individuals and groups of people, including those who are willing to work toward solving socio-environmental challenges. This scenario calls for changes in how we think, relate to each other, and act. One possible and promising way to promote such changes is through dialogue (Bohm, 2005; Isaacs, 1999; Ellinor; Gerard, 2014; Freire, 1981), with applied research being of great importance to a better understanding of the effects that may arise from deliberately designed dialogical interactions (Yankelovich, 2001).
Therefore, this paper analyzes a dialogue method developed by Monteiro, Toledo, and Jacobi (2021b), applied in the context of a thematic environmental research project carried out in Brazil. The initiative brought together several researchers from different fields of knowledge to collaborate toward a new environmental governance. It sought to answer the following question: what are the effects of the process of learning dialogic principles and practices provided by the method proposed to the group of researchers of the Thematic Project Environmental Governance of the São Paulo Macrometropolis in the face of climate variability?
The following section presents the theoretical understanding of dialogue adopted in the research, as well as the method that fosters it.
Dialogue: theory and method
Recognizing the multiplicity of meanings attributed to dialogue, characterized as a polysemic concept, this paper and the analysis presented here adopts the definition of dialogue by Monteiro, Toledo, and Jacobi (2021a). This concept is based on Bohm’s (1980, 2007) understanding of how thought works and on ideas from other authors in neuroscience, psychology, philosophy, biology, sociology, and the history of science to then articulate the concepts of anti-dialogicity and dialogicity as different ways of guiding thought, conversation, action, and learning (Monteiro; Toledo; Jacobi, 2021a).
In anti-dialogicity, thinking is self-enclosed, fixed in its values and beliefs, with little or no openness to different ideas. Similarly, conversation takes the form of disputing arguments and reaffirmations, often interrupting the other person, judging them, and generalizing their ideas. Actions taken in relationships seeks to dominate, since the other is understood as a threat due to divergent opinions and ideas. Finally, learning is characterized by a process in which the aforementioned ways of thinking, talking, and acting are learned, fostering an ethic of exclusion among different people and groups (Monteiro; Toledo; Jacobi, 2021a).
In contrast, we have dialogicity, in which thinking remains open to new ideas and practices, critic and attentive to cognitive biases. Conversation occurs in a manner that seeks to understand the other, their perspectives and life experiences, through listening without interruptions, judgment or generalization. The action that arises from dialogical ways of thinking and conversing is more humanized, recognizing the intersubjectivity of the individuals involved in the relationship. Finally, learning is characterized by the joint practice of dialogical thinking, conversation, and action, which can stimulate cognitive changes, relational changes, and collaborative actions (Monteiro; Toledo; Jacobi, 2021a).
To promote the experience of dialogicity, and based on the methodological practices of David Bohm (2005), William Isaacs (1999), and Paulo Freire (1981), Monteiro, Toledo, and Jacobi (2021b) developed a method consisting of two interrelated cycles: Reflexive Dialogue and Deliberative Dialogue.
In the Reflective Dialogue Cycle, based on certain prerequisites-such as a common understanding of the concept of dialogue, a predisposition to its practice, interest and curiosity about new ideas, respect, and the avoidance of resolutive attitudes-the aim is to foster understanding and connection among people through the experience of four dialogical practices: listening, identifying emotions and feelings, speaking, and re-admiring. With specific characteristics, each practice can be performed and adapted differently, but always seeking to promote dialogicity. This cycle can therefore give rise to three complementary outcomes and promote individual and collective transformations: i) understanding differences + learning about the other; ii) understanding differences + learning about the other + cognitive change on the subject discussed; iii) co-creation of new meanings (Monteiro; Toledo; Jacobi, 2021b).
In turn, the Deliberative Dialogue Cycle can begin with the co-creation of new meanings emerging from the previous cycle, aiming at the development of collaborative practices toward the achievement of common goals. It starts with a dialogic planning process in which the problems to be addressed are mapped and diagnosed, key partnerships for achieving the proposed objective are identified, and the responsibilities and actions to be undertaken are defined. This is followed by the action itself, that is, the dialogic intervention, which must be accompanied by a dialogic evaluation of the process as a whole, verifying the desire for continuity and improvement of the Deliberative Cycle under development or the need to start a new Reflexive Cycle to qualify the understanding of the results achieved so far (Monteiro; Toledo; Jacobi, 2021b).
Methodology
A qualitative approach (Creswell, 2014) was adopted for the development of this research, drawing on Becker’s (1994) assumption about the importance of methodological improvisation as a means of adapting methods and techniques to the particular context of the investigation, while ensuring scientific rigor based on a detailed description of the entire methodological process.
Pedagogical intervention research was adopted as epistemological inspiration, which means that its methodological principles were used as a basis, without the intention of adhering to them strictly. In this type of research, the aim is to investigate an intervention and ascertain its transformative effects (Damiani, 2012; Damiani et al., 2013). In this study, we sought to analyze the effects of applying the dialogue method developed by Monteiro, Toledo, and Jacobi (2021b) throughout a course (the intervention), based on the stimulation of the Reflexive Dialogue Cycle and its ability to foster the Deliberative Dialogue Cycle through the emergence of new collaborative actions.
It should be noted that, in this type of research, it is recommended that intervention and investigation methods be distinguished so that the boundaries between them are clear (Damiani, 2012). The context in which the intervention was conducted, the intervention method, and the investigation method are presented below.
Thematic Project Environmental Governance of the São Paulo Macrometropolis in the face of climate variability
The Thematic Project Environmental Governance of the São Paulo Macrometropolis in the Face of Climate Variability (commonly referred to by its it members simply as the Project, Thematic, or MacroAmb) was an academic project carried out in Brazil and funded by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) (grant no. 15/03804-9), conducted from 2017 to 2023. It brought together more than one hundred researchers from different fields of knowledge and institutions to investigate, in a collaborative and interdisciplinary manner, the processes that constitute an environmental governance agenda in the context of climate variability in the territory of the São Paulo Macrometropolis (IEE, 2015).
This large group of researchers was divided into five working groups, namely: G1 - Environmental sanitation governance and vulnerability analysis in the São Paulo Macrometropolis; G2 - Territorialities, spatialities, and innovation in environmental governance; G3 - The approach to ecosystem services within the dynamics of environmental governance; G4 - Governance of energy issues in the context of the São Paulo Macrometropolis; and G5 - Evolution of urbanization in the city of São Paulo and its impact on atmospheric patterns in the region: numerical simulations of present and future climate (IEE, 2015).
According to official Project documents, the greatest challenge for this group of researchers is to promote coordinated and integrated knowledge about the different dimensions of environmental governance (IEE, 2015, p. 14-15), fostering interdisciplinary dialogue.
Monteiro et al. (2024) analyzed the activities carried out within the Thematic Project, from its inception through the first semester of 2020, to identify potentialities and challenges related to the occurrence of dialogue. As a result, they found a scenario of incipient dialogue, demonstrating that the challenge of interdisciplinary and collaborative dialogue persisted during the Project’s early years. This situation constituted an interesting opportunity to test the dialogue method proposed in the research.
Intervention method
The intervention consisted of three phases: Phase 1 - Identification of researchers from the Thematic Project interested in participating in the research; Phase 2 - Survey of conceptions about dialogue and how they perceived its presence within the Thematic Project; Phase 3 - Implementation of the course Learning the Art of Dialogue over six weeks between September and October 2020, consisting of eight 90-minute sessions.
The training was divided into two parts. The first one consisted of four introductory meetings - two weekly meetings over two weeks, in which participants were encouraged to experiment with the dialogical practices of the method based on themes chosen by them, understood in this study as codifications (Freire, 1981). The second part consisted of four in-depth meetings, one weekly meeting over four weeks, in which participants used their own experiences from their personal and professional lives (including situations experienced in the Thematic Project) as codifications to be discussed.
It should be noted that the change in the time interval between meetings in the second part of the training is justified by the pedagogical intention of providing participants with more time to practice dialogue in everyday experiences, deepening the learning process.
A group of seven people from the Thematic Project was formed on a voluntary basis, with two representatives from Group 1, two from Group 2, one from Group 3, one from Group 4, and one from Group 5. Within this sample, there were researchers from different hierarchical levels (including more junior and more senior researchers). The diversity of representatives from the five groups and academic hierarchy approximated to the configuration existing in the broad collective of the Thematic Project, constituting a kind of microcosm of analysis (Bohm, 2005).
The meetings were led by a facilitator (the first author of this paper) and were held virtually via Google Meet, due to the Covid-19 pandemic. At the first meeting of the course, participants were asked to keep a logbook (Mello, 2016): a material (physical notebook, text document on the computer, notepad on the cell phone, or similar) to record, in narrative form, the lessons learned throughout the process.
They were asked to record their experiences of interaction both within and outside the context of the research, based on the following aspects: how they behaved during the conversation (whether or not they managed to apply the techniques of the method); what the challenges and successes were; and what they learned.
At the beginning of each meeting, participants shared their experiences of applying the method outside the group context and were encouraged by the facilitator to record these situations in their logbooks. In addition, at the end of each meeting, they were invited to record and reflect on their experiences with the group, as well as to take advantage of daily interactions to continue practicing the method and recording their experiences in their logbooks.
At the end of the process, all researchers who participated in the study received a certificate of completion for the course.
Investigation methods
Data were collected through: questionnaires (Marconi; Lakatos, 2003) in Phases 1 and 2 of the intervention method and three months after the end of the intervention (February 2021); participant observation (Marconi; Lakatos, 2003) during the course; and document analysis (Ludke; André, 1986; Marconi; Lakatos, 2003), based on documents written by the researchers, transcribed recordings of the course, and participants’ logbooks. It is worth noting that the logbooks did not fulfill their original purpose, since the participants did not use them to make records throughout the learning process, but rather completed them at the end of the process, so that they functioned as a kind of training memoir.
Data analysis began more over a year after the course was completed and was based on categories developed in accordance with the dialogue theory of Monteiro, Toledo, and Jacobi (2021a, 2021b). Each category consists of a definition, an indicator question, and evidence (see Table 1).
Data analysis was divided into four stages. Stage 1 involved searching for evidence during the transcription of course recordings, as recommended in qualitative research, a stage in which data and narratives are organized and pre-analyzed (Bardin, 2011; Gomes et al., 2005). Stage 2 consisted of immersion in the data, considering what had been collected from each instrument separately (questionnaires, participant observation, and documents), through the identification of words, expressions, or phrases, understood as units of analysis that presented evidence related to each of the categories developed.
Stage 3 involved the individualized analysis of each research participant, identifying evidence according to the categories. During this phase, triangulation (Azevedo et al., 2013) of the data collected through the different instruments was performed. At this stage, participants were identified by the letter P followed by a number (e.g., participant 2 = P2) in order to preserve anonymity. Finally, Stage 4 involved grouping similar evidence from different participants into the same category of analysis.
It should be noted that internal validation (Ollaik; Ziller, 2012) of the research was carried out throughout the course meetings, through participant’s evaluation of the process they experienced. The research was submitted to Plataforma Brasil (CAAE: 35565120.9.0000.5464) and approved by the Ethics Committee. All participants received instructions about the research and the Informed Consent Form, which was used to obtain their consent to participate. Participation was voluntary and complied with the ethical criteria proposed by Resolution No. 466, dated December 12, 2012, of the National Health Council, which establishes the guidelines and regulatory standards for research involving human subjects.
Results and discussion
This section presents and discusses the results found regarding three possible effects linked to the learning process facilitated by the dialogue method: 1. Cognitive changes; 2. Relational changes; and 3. Collaborative actions.
Cognitive changes
Throughout the learning process that took place during the course, it was possible to observe cognitive changes in the participants in different aspects. There was a change in the way they thought about themselves, based on the indication of becoming aware, that is, moving from not knowing something to knowing it. P1 recognized patterns in behavior when speaking (“[...] I discovered that I talk too much after I start”) and was able to better understand personal feelings when they emerged (“Before the course, I paid little attention to my feelings. I always had a feeling of ‘shock’ and never stopped to think about what that shock really was. Today, although it seems that my repertoire of feelings is a little limited, I can differentiate between some types”).
This realization of talking too much once it has started is important for avoiding the traps of anti-dialogicity, such as monopolizing the conversation and interrupting others (Monteiro; Toledo; Jacobi, 2021a). Furthermore, Bohm (2005, p. 55-56) suggests that it is “[...] necessary [...] to be aware of the connections between the thoughts that arise in dialogue, bodily sensations, and emotions,” which is exactly what P1 began to do as a result of the process stimulated by the method.
There was also a change in the way of thinking about a certain aspect of existence, altering a pre-existing idea. P6 identified a belief previously held about something cultural (within their academic environment, almost everyone agrees) that was challenged when they heard what P3 had said. Thus, P6 became aware of this belief and seems to have reframed it in some way-when they state, “Not necessarily, right?”-loosening their conviction:
But, for example, in my academic environment, my initial thought is: “Oh, it’s easier here, almost everyone agrees!” Not necessarily, right? Occasionally, we may not know if we are exercising that power, right? P3 said the other day, it’s true, right, if we are exercising that power, you may even believe that everyone agrees with you, right?
This result indicates that the method stimulates dialogical thinking, encouraging openness to confronting the uncomfortable state of doubt and uncertainty, seeking to re- admiring one’s own convictions (Monteiro; Toledo; Jacobi, 2021a).
Similarly, P5 seems to have been surprised to glimpse a new possibility for interaction within their group in the Thematic Project (G1) when they came into contact with P4’s experience (G5), saying, “Wow, it’s an environment somewhat similar to what I have there, but in academic life, how different!” in the following excerpt:
[...] I always thought I was someone who didn’t like to talk, ask questions, and things like that. It’s very difficult for me to ask questions in college classes, and I always thought that it was just part of who I am. When I arrived in an environment-for example, at [name withheld]-I saw people talking in a way that no one was trying to show the other that they were right, but rather collaborating with each other- “Oh, I know it this way”; “This way also works”; “Let’s do it another way.” That’s when I discovered that I like to ask questions too, and then a box opened and... poof! I ask a lot of questions, and I feel like it’s a totally different environment from what I see in academic life, because when I’m in class, I always see, for example at events, one person wanting to impose their opinion on another and things like that. So, I think that maybe we already enter these academic environments with this spirit because it’s already something that’s inside us, that we’ve already been trained to do. [...] P4 said the other day that at G5 the meetings are different, you can say what you feel, what you’re unsure about, and you’re not judged, and I thought that was really cool. And I said, “Wow, it’s an environment kind of like what I have there, but in academic life, how different! How can we achieve that here too?” [...]. In the case of G1, I think it would be cool to have something like the G5 that P4 talked about, and I was like, “Wow, I really wish it could be like that too.”
This statement also indicates a change in a pre-existing idea about a certain aspect of existence, in this case, the functioning of research groups within the Thematic Project. Such thinking about how work is organized is an important step toward collaboration, identifying aspects that can be changed to produce results coherent with the desired goals, as suggested by Bohm (2005, 2007).
In addition, there was a change in the way of thinking about the other based on the alteration of a pre-existing idea about them, as evidenced by P3 when stating that they had changed their view of the Thematic Project Secretariat after coming into contact with people who are part of it and who were present among the course participants:
[...] as for our colleagues at MacroAmb, having colleagues from the MacroAmb Secretariat whom many of us had seen as an entity, as an actor acting as an enemy... The course, through co- presence, allowed us to recognize the humanity of other people and reflect on the limitations and closed-mindedness both on my part and on the part of my colleagues in the G4 toward the MacroAmb Secretariat.
This result indicates the important effect of the method in transforming negative beliefs about others, constructed from the enemyfying syndrome, as proposed by Kahane (2019). Such beliefs hinder or prevent collaborative dialogical relationships (Monteiro; Toledo; Jacobi, 2021b).
There were also signs of a change in pre-existing ideas and the addition of new ones regarding the concept of dialogue itself. In general, and despite each person’s particularities, there seems to have been a deepening of the participants’ pre-course conceptions. For example, P4 acknowledged that before the process, they thought that “[...] any shallow conversation was dialogue,” but came to understand it more deeply based on the principles and practices presented. This effect of the method, by altering pre-existing ideas, allowed participants to reframe the notion of dialogue when they came into contact with the prescriptive approach to this concept (Stewart; Zediker, 2000).
P3, in turn, stated that they had gained new ideas about the practice of dialogue; in their words: something that “[...] was already happening before the course, but it gives you the tools to do it better.” This statement is in line with Isaacs’ (1999) idea that dialogue is something we know how to do to some extent, but there is a long way to go in learning it, since we are not culturally encouraged to experience it in our relationships. Furthermore, it is important to note that, three months after the end of the course, the participants’ conceptions of dialogue remained aligned with what they had presented at the end of the course, indicating the permanence of cognitive changes around the concept within the mentioned period.
Thus, the evidence presented of “not knowing something and then coming to know it,” of “adding a new idea to a pre-existing one,” and of “altering a pre-existing idea” supports the promotion of cognitive changes as an effect of the dialogue method on researchers. Furthermore, the aforementioned cognitive changes can be interpreted as something new that emerges from dialogic interaction between people (Bohm, 2005, 2007; Freire, 1981). By engaging in conversation that seeks to understand different meanings, in a way of thinking that questions beliefs, and a way of acting that recognizes otherness, especially difference (Monteiro; Toledo; Jacobi, 2021a), space is opened for the emergence of new ideas and perspectives about oneself, about the other person, and about some aspect of life (Monteiro; Toledo; Jacobi, 2021b).
Relational changes
At the same time, there were signs of relational changes, that is, transformations in the way people acted toward each other.
P5, for example, said they had a negative view of one of the course participants, due to their previous interactions. Throughout the process, they were able to change the way they related to that person, but three months after the end of the course, the relationship appears to have evolved into a new negative stage:
[...] before the course, I had an image of someone who caused a lot of conflict within the group. [...] During the course, that image changed, as I got to know him a little better beyond the conflicts he caused. However, after the course, in interactions [...] in activities [...] the feeling that he was a person who generated conflicts returned, so I have avoided contact (restricting it to only what is necessary).
In contrast is the case of P7, who also had a negative view of another participant before the course, changed it, and it seems to have remained so during the three months after the course, suggesting an improvement in the relationship between them: “There was a person I thought was arrogant and difficult to talk to, however, throughout the course, I completely changed that perception and came to admire their qualities and frankness.”
These results show evidence that the dialogue method stimulated a change in the quality of the relationship. In the first case, it shifted from bad to better and then back to bad again. In the second case, it went from bad to good. As a result of contact and understanding of the other, it was possible to change pre-existing ideas about them, characterizing the effect of cognitive change, which, in turn, culminated in a change in the quality of the relationship (Ellinor; Gerard, 2014; Yankelovich, 2001). On the one hand, preconceptions, distancing, and the desire for domination, which are characteristic of anti-dialogicity, are reduced. On the other hand, there seems to be a recognition of previously invisible qualities, as well as a restoration of humanity, characterized by not generalizing the other based on only one or a few characteristics, which are usually negative, but rather perceiving the diversity of aspects that make up their being, thus approaching dialogicity (Monteiro; Toledo; Jacobi, 2021a).
Furthermore, it is worth recognizing the fluid nature of such relational effects, as happened with P5, that is, just as they can shift from negative to positive, they can also shift in the opposite direction. Although this may seem negative, it is consistent with the “[...] normal and continuous dynamics of human relationships,” characterized by the presence of conflict that promotes change, as proposed by Lederach (2012, p. 28), thus providing a new opportunity for dialogue to address something that is still uncomfortable for one (or both) parties in a relationship.
It was also possible to identify signs of change in the quality of relationships with other people involved in the Thematic Project who did not participate in the research, as evidenced by P4 when recounting a situation at the end of the course in which he noticed a change in his behavior:
At the end of the course, something happened within the MacroAmb project that made me realize a change in my behavior. A senior member of MacroAmb was upset because the questionnaires he sends to project members are not being answered. He then reinforced to the Secretariat group, of which I am a member, that the questionnaires should be answered. He did not say which questionnaire. I then checked if a questionnaire I had already sent to my group was the one he wanted answered. We came to the conclusion that the Secretariat was not sending the same questionnaire to the groups. We corrected this and agreed on which questionnaire would be sent. When sending it to my group, I said that it was important for everyone to fill it out because it was important for achieving the project’s goal. Before the course, I don’t think I would have checked whether we were talking about the same subject, and I would have reinforced the request to fill out the form in the same way that I received the request from the senior member, with a certain amount of annoyance. Today, with the ingredients of the course, I can take a step back from the situation and realize that everyone is either fighting for what is important to them or not. In this context, filling out the form was important. The way this request came, with a certain annoyance, shows that it was important to the senior member, but some members of the Secretariat also felt this annoyance and passed on the request to fill it out with annoyance as well, which generates a movement against filling it out. Before the course, I would also have reproduced the annoyance without really understanding what was important in that context. It was very cool to realize the improvement and the importance of demonstrating each person’s needs.
This effect of changing the way of relating professionally with colleagues in the Project, stimulated by the method, can facilitate collaboration and the achievement of the proposed objectives, avoiding unnecessary conflicts by identifying incoherencies in communication and thinking present in various situations, as proposed by Bohm (2005, 2007).
In addition, P6 stated that they had practiced dialogue within their group over the three months following the end of the course: “For my part, I try to devote myself more to promoting dialogue.” This highlights the pollination of dialogue (Monteiro; Toledo; Jacobi, 2020, 2021b), that is, the process of adopting it in one’s relationships with people who have not experienced the learning process, in the hope of inspiring them to build a more dialogical relationship and thus reap its benefits.
However, this process did not occur without obstacles. P2, when practicing this attitude in his group, encountered a lack of reciprocity from his colleagues, saying: “[...] I feel that there is a certain contempt for my research on the part of some.” The attitude of colleagues reported by P2 seems to indicate a lack of openness to a dialogical relationship, which is consistent with the anti-dialogical stance prevalent in our relationships (Bohm, 1980; Fourez, 1995; Harari, 2018).
Furthermore, among the relational changes that persisted in some participants after three months of the course are openness and tolerance toward others: “I am able to listen more and be more tolerant of statements that I would previously have simply ignored because they conflicted with my values and opinions” (P1); “I have developed more tolerance toward my mother, an elderly and conservative lady” (P2). This seems to indicate the potential of the dialogue method to produce positive effects on the quality of relationships after the end of the course, seeking to promote the predominance of dialogicity in everyday life, as suggested by Monteiro and Sorrentino (2019, 2020).
At the same time, this extension of the method’s effect on relationships seems to have a certain limit, beyond which there is still no openness to a dialogical stance, as evidenced by P2 when he says that he persists in his “[...] intolerance toward those who think differently to the limit,” or by P1 when he states that he has difficulty in “[...] listening actively and putting aside preconceptions about certain attitudes and statements.” Such challenges are consistent with the obstacles imposed by culturally learned anti-dialogical behaviors (Bohm, 1980; Fourez, 2007) and indicate the limits of the method.
Finally, during the three-month period after the end of the course, the method stimulated a change in the quality of the relationship between project researchers and participants in their research. P1 said he believed that learning the principles and practices of dialogue “[...] facilitated the exercise of looking more impartially at some data and not allowing preconceptions to lead to a prior unwillingness to engage in dialogue with actors who challenge my values.” This exercise of looking at data and a particular social actor without preconceptions is particularly important for any scientist (Malinowski, 1984). However, every scientist is, first and foremost, a human being and therefore subject to all the biological, psychological, social, and cultural mechanisms that can hinder this ability to refrain from judgement (Damásio, 2004; Kahneman, 2012; Alcock, 2018). Thus, the process of learning dialogue, facilitated by the method, can be an important skill for scientists in their research.
In view of all that has been presented so far, it is possible to state that the participants experienced the Reflexive Dialogue Cycle of the Monteiro, Toledo, and Jacobi (2021b) method, experiencing transformations in their ways of thinking and relating. This scenario is consistent with that suggested by authors in the field of dialogue (Bohm, 2005; Ellinor; Gerard, 2014; Freire, 1981, 1983; Isaacs, 1999; Yankelovich, 2001), in which people can broaden their perspectives and transform relationships by experiencing dialogue-based communication and relationships. At the same time, such processes aim to achieve collaborative actions between these people, something that will be addressed below.
Collaborative actions
Regarding the emergence of new collaborative actions among course participants, it was possible to identify some suggestions for action during the course aimed at improving work within the Thematic Project, but none of them seemed to have been strong enough to materialize. Therefore, it is possible to state that, as a result of the dialogue method, there was no emergence of new collaborative actions among the research participants, either during the course or three months after its completion, making it plausible to infer that the participants did not reach the Deliberative Dialogue Cycle (Monteiro; Toledo; Jacobi, 2021b).
This result may indicate a limitation of the method itself in stimulating collaborative actions. On the other hand, when comparing this result with those found by Monteiro and Jacobi (2020) and Lopes et al. (2020), a significant difference can be noted. The authors applied the same dialogue method with a group of young environmentalists, using less time (only five meetings), and collaborative action emerged among them.
The differentiating factor here may be that the young participants in the dialogue are members of the same group and not of several, as in the case of the researchers. This situation is consistent with the ideas of Yankelovich (2001) who suggests that groups formed by people from the same subculture (who have similar values, interests, perspectives, and customs) can reap the benefits of dialogue in just a few meetings, while a group composed of people from different subcultures, as seems to have been the case in the Thematic Project (each representative of the working groups in the course constituting a kind of subculture), a greater number of meetings may be necessary.
Furthermore, it is possible to hypothesize the existence of certain obstacles linked to the implementation of new collaborative actions among researchers, such as the “[...] accumulation of activities by project leaders” (P7) and pre-existing deadlines and targets to be met within the Thematic Project. Such conditions may leave little room and time for new demands, despite the researchers’ interest in the proposed ideas. At the same time, the process of facilitating the method could have stimulated more interactions regarding the specific activities of the Thematic Project in which each researcher was involved and, thus, perhaps facilitated the emergence of ideas for collaborative actions that would optimize time in meeting common objectives or goals.
It is also worth noting the Covid-19 pandemic scenario, which broke out worldwide in 2020, the year in which the course was held, as a possible obstacle, given that it affected people’s lives and, therefore, the dynamics of their work. This may have led participants to take a more conservative stance, carrying out only the collaborative actions that had been previously agreed upon.
Final considerations
This research sought to investigate the effects of the process of learning dialogical principles and practices on researchers in an interdisciplinary environmental project, using the method developed by Monteiro, Toledo, and Jacobi (2021b), based on three categories. Regarding the first - cognitive changes - evidence was found of “not knowing something and then coming to know it,” “adding a new idea to a pre-existing one,” and “altering a pre-existing idea,” which support the occurrence of a change in the researchers’ way of thinking as an effect of the method. Regarding the second - relational changes - evidence was found that the dialogue method stimulated changes in the quality of the relationship between the researchers participating in the research and between them and other colleagues in the Project, as well as the extension of such changes to everyday relationships after the end of the course. Regarding the third - collaborative actions - no evidence was found of the emergence of new collaborative actions among researchers as an effect of the method.
Thus, it can be said that the research participants experienced the Reflexive Dialogue Cycle, undergoing transformations in their ways of thinking and relating to each other, but did not reach the Deliberative Dialogue Cycle. This demonstrates the potential for adopting the method in large scientific research groups linked to environmental issues that wish to think together and build relationships that promote harmonious coexistence.
These results have interesting implications for the continued development of studies on the dialogue learning process and its effects, especially in relation to the method investigated in this research. It may be interesting, for example, to analyze the effects of the method over a longer period (six, nine, or twelve months) to examine the dynamics of relationship transformation and the co-creation of new ideas, or even the effects of the method in other contexts, not only in research, but also in university extension projects, social inclusion, or in situations of conflict mediation, strategic planning, public policy development, etc.
One can also investigate how to promote the transition from the Reflexive Dialogue Cycle to the Deliberative Cycle more efficiently. Should action arise spontaneously, from the people themselves, or should it rely on the assistance of a facilitator? If this facilitator is in a position of power or suggests a particular action based on the recommendation of someone in a position of power, does this somehow undermine the dialogical co- creation of actions? These and other questions can help reveal the best way to promote collaborative and dialogical actions in groups.
The results of this research may also have interesting implications for researchers in other fields who wish to work in diverse scientific teams and/or lead such teams, encouraging members to change the way they think about themselves, others, and scientific collaboration itself, as well as transforming the quality of interpersonal relationships within the group.
To achieve these results, it is recommended to adopt dialogue as a basic principle of collaboration within the team/project. In other words, when forming the team or integrating a new member into it, it is necessary to emphasize that collaborative relationships will be based on dialogical principles and practices.
At the same time, it is suggested that periodic reflexive dialogue sessions be held, facilitated by an expert in the dialogue method investigated in this research, so that people can practice and learn to dialogue. These dialogue sessions can take place in parallel with work meetings or can be integrated into them. However, it is worth remembering that in reflexive dialogue, it is necessary to renounce a resolutive stance for it to happen, that is, it is necessary to momentarily set aside the desire to solve a problem. The proposal at this stage of the dialogue method is to deepen people’s understanding of their different ways of interpreting the work to be done, the strategies to be adopted, and other aspects related to collaboration. Once this moment has passed, it is possible to begin the next stage of the method, deliberative dialogue. In this stage, a resolutive stance is adopted, and decisions are made about what will be done and how.
The frequency of reflexive dialogue sessions may vary depending on each group. As suggested by Yankelovich (2001), a group with few differences in perspectives may achieve results in terms of transforming relationships and creating new ideas in just a few meetings (around two to five sessions). For a very diverse group, however, more meetings may be necessary to achieve the same results (eight or more sessions). Therefore, it is not possible to define an exact number of dialogue sessions to be held. The suggestion here is to plan for eight meetings and monitor the group’s progress. If results appear before the end of all scheduled meetings, it is possible to begin deliberative dialogue. On the other hand, if the results do not appear at the end of the eight meetings, it is possible to continue with new sessions.
Finally, it should be noted that there is still a promising path ahead for the application and investigation of the proposed method, further deepening knowledge about the dialogue learning process and its effects in a wide range of applied contexts.
References
- ALCOCK, James. Belief: what it means to believe and why our convictions are so compelling. Amherst; New York: Prometheus Books, 2018.
-
AZEVEDO, Carlos Eduardo Franco et al. . A estratégia de triangulação: objetivos, possibilidades, limitações e proximidades com o pragmatismo. In: ENCONTRO DE ENSINO E PESQUISA EM ADMINISTRAÇÃO E CONTABILIDADE, 4., 2013, Brasília, DF. Anais eletrônicos [...]. Brasília, DF: EnEPQ, 2013. Disponível em: Disponível em: http://www.anpad.org.br/diversos/trabalhos/EnEPQ/enepq_2013/2013_EnEPQ5.pdf Acesso em: 10 nov. 2016.
» http://www.anpad.org.br/diversos/trabalhos/EnEPQ/enepq_2013/2013_EnEPQ5.pdf - BARDIN, Laurence. Análise de conteúdo. Lisboa: Edições 70, 2011.
- BECKER, Howard Saul. Métodos de pesquisa em ciências sociais. 2. ed. São Paulo: Hucitec, 1994.
- BOHM, David. A totalidade e a ordem implicada. São Paulo: Cultrix, 1980.
- BOHM, David. Diálogo: comunicação e redes de convivência. São Paulo: Palas Athena, 2005.
- BOHM, David. O pensamento como um sistema. São Paulo: Madras, 2007.
- CRESWELL, John Ward. Investigação qualitativa e projeto de pesquisa: escolhendo entre cinco abordagens. 3. ed. Porto Alegre: Penso, 2014.
- DAMÁSIO, António. Em busca de Espinosa: prazer e dor na ciência dos sentimentos. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2004.
-
DAMIANI, Magda Floriana. Sobre pesquisas do tipo intervenção. In: ENCONTRO NACIONAL DE DIDÁTICA E PRÁTICAS DE ENSINO, 16., 2012, Campinas. Anais eletrônicos [...]. Campinas: s. n., 2012. Disponível em: Disponível em: http://www.infoteca.inf.br/endipe/smarty/templates/arquivos_template/upload_arquivos/acervo/docs/2345b.pdf Acesso em: 9 set. 2018.
» http://www.infoteca.inf.br/endipe/smarty/templates/arquivos_template/upload_arquivos/acervo/docs/2345b.pdf -
DAMIANI, Magda Floriana et al . Discutindo pesquisas do tipo intervenção pedagógica. Cadernos de Educação, Pelotas, v. 45, 2013. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://periodicos.ufpel.edu.br/ojs2/index.php/caduc/article/view/3822 Acesso em: 9 set. 2018.
» https://periodicos.ufpel.edu.br/ojs2/index.php/caduc/article/view/3822 - ELLINOR, Linda; GERARD, Glenna. Dialogue: rediscover the transforming power of conversation. Hertford: Crossroad Press, 2014. Digital edition.
- FOUREZ, Gérard. A construção das ciências: introdução à filosofia e à ética das ciências. Tradução de Luiz Paulo Rouanet. São Paulo: Unesp, 1995.
- FREIRE, Paulo. Extensão ou comunicação?. 8. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra, 1983.
- FREIRE, Paulo. Pedagogia do oprimido. 10. ed. Rio de Janeiro, Paz e Terra, 1981.
- GOMES, Romeu et al . Organização, processamento, análise e interpretação de dados: o desafio da triangulação. In: MINAYO, Maria Cecília de Souza; ASSIS, Simone Gonçalves de; SOUZA, Edinilsa Ramos de. Avaliação por triangulação de métodos: abordagem de programas sociais. Rio de Janeiro: Fiocruz, 2005. p. 185-221.
- HARARI, Yuval Noah. Sapiens: uma breve história da humanidade. Tradução de Janaína Marcoantonio. Porto Alegre: L&PM, 2018.
- IEE. Instituto de Energia e Ambiente. Proposta de projeto temático de pesquisa: Governança Ambiental da Macrometrópole Paulista face à variabilidade climática. São Paulo: IEA, 2015.
- ISAACS, William. Dialogue and the art of thinking together: a pioneering approach to communicating in business and in life. New York: Doubleday, 1999.
- KAHANE, Adam. Trabalhando com o inimigo: como colaborar com pessoas das quais você discorda, não gosta ou desconfia. São Paulo: Senac, 2019.
- KAHNEMAN, Daniel. Rápido e devagar: duas formas de pensar. Rio de Janeiro: Objetiva, 2012.
- LEDERACH, John Paul. Transformação de conflitos. São Paulo: Palas Athena, 2021.
- LOPES, Thaís Cândido et al . Covid-19 e questões estruturais: a transformação por meio do diálogo e da colaboração. Revista Brasileira de Educação Ambiental, São Paulo, v. 15, n. 4, p. 440-455, 2020.
- LUDKE, Menga; ANDRÉ, Marli E. D. A.. Pesquisa em educação: abordagens qualitativas. São Paulo: EPU, 1986.
- MALINOWSKI, Bronislaw Kasper. Argonautas do Pacífico ocidental: um relato do empreendimento e da aventura dos nativos nos arquipélogos da Nova Guiné melanésia. 3. ed. São Paulo: Abril Cultural, 1984. p. VI-XXI. (Os pensadores).
- MARCONI, Marina de Andrade; LAKATOS, Eva Maria. Fundamentos de metodologia científica. 5. ed. São Paulo: Atlas, 2003.
- MELLO, Maristela Barrenco C.. O diário de bordo: criando uma linha de fuga sobre uma linha de montagem. Revista Sul-Americana de Filosofia e Educação - Resafe, Brasília, DF, v. 25, p. 192-209, 2016.
- MONTEIRO, Rafael de Araujo Arosa; JACOBI, Pedro Roberto. Diálogo: uma jornada de aprendizagem e polinização para educadoras(es). In: LAMIM-GUEDES, Valdir (org.). A educação na Covid-19: a voz docente. São Paulo: Na Raiz, 2020. p. 14-24.
- MONTEIRO, Rafael de Araujo Arosa; SORRENTINO, Marcos. Educação ambiental dialógica: uma proposta a partir de Martin Buber, David Bohm, William Isaacs e Paulo Freire. In: MONTEIRO, Rafael de Araujo Arosa; SORRENTINO, Marcos; JACOBI, Pedro Roberto (org.). Diálogo e transição educadora para sociedades sustentáveis. São Paulo: IEA-USP: Na Raiz, 2020. p. 135-142.
- MONTEIRO, Rafael de Araujo Arosa; SORRENTINO, Marcos. O diálogo na educação ambiental: uma síntese a partir de Martin Buber, David Bohm, William Isaacs e Paulo Freire. Pesquisa em Educação Ambiental, São Carlos / Rio Claro / Ribeirão Preto, v. 14, n. 1, p. 10-31, 2019.
- MONTEIRO, Rafael de Araujo Arosa; TOLEDO, Renata Ferraz de; JACOBI, Pedro Roberto. Diálogo: conceito, princípios epistemológicos e implicações éticas. Vozes & Diálogo, Itajaí, v. 20, n. 2, p. 19-32, 2021a.
- MONTEIRO, Rafael de Araujo Arosa; TOLEDO, Renata Ferraz de; JACOBI, Pedro Roberto. Dialogue method: a proposal to foster intra and inter-community dialogic engagement. Journal of Dialogue Studies, London, v. 9, p. 164-188, 2021b.
- MONTEIRO, Rafael de Araujo Arosa; TOLEDO, Renata Ferraz de; JACOBI, Pedro Roberto. Virtual dialogues: a method to deal with polarisation in a time of social isolation caused by Covid-19. Journal of Dialogue Studies, London, v. 8, p. 113-133, 2020.
- MONTEIRO, Rafael de Araujo Arosa et al . Dialogue and social learning: analyzing the challenges of integrating different knowledges in an interdisciplinary research. In: JACOBI, Pedro Roberto et al. (org.) . Environmental governance of the São Paulo Macrometropolis: perspectives on climate variability. 1. ed. Cham: Springer, 2024. p. 373-386.
- MORIN, Edgar. A cabeça bem-feita: repensar a reforma, reformar o pensamento. Tradução de Eloá Jacobina. 8. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Bertrand Brasil, 2003.
- OLLAIK, Leila Giandoni; ZILLER, Henrique Moraes. Concepções de validade em pesquisas qualitativas. Educação e Pesquisa, São Paulo, v. 38, n. 1, p. 229-241, 2012.
- STEWART, John; ZEDIKER, Karen. Dialogue as tensional, ethical practice. Southern Communication Journal, Boone, v. 65, n. 2-3, p. 224-242, 2000.
- YANKELOVICH, Daniel. The magic of dialogue: transforming conflict into cooperation. New York: Touchstone, 2001.
-
*
English version by Giovana Andrade. The authors take full responsibility for the translation of the text, including title of books/articles and the quotations originally published in Portuguese.
-
1
We are grateful for the support of the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) in conducting this research.
-
Data availability:
The entire dataset supporting the results of this study has been published in the article itself.
-
Editor:
Prof. Dr. Renata Marcilio Cândido
The entire dataset supporting the results of this study has been published in the article itself.
Source: Developed by the authors