Dialogue as a Practice of Participation
“…dialogue is an encounter among women and men who name the world, it must not be a situation where some name on behalf of others. It is an act of creation; it must not serve as a crafty instrument for the domination of one person by another. The domination implicit in dialogue is that of the world by the dialogues; it is conquest of the world for the liberation of humankind.” PF (chapter 3)
Within my everyday practice, I am often covering students’ viewpoints and opinions, trying to read reactions, dynamics, and think about the cause and effect of teaching practices and curriculum design. I enjoy talking to students within groups and one-to-one, and I value dialogic, conversational learning. Collecting data, however, is not something I am accustomed to. For this project, I used a range of methods to gather data and began to see how rich the dialogic nature of some of this material could be. Through this process, I was listening out for aspects of true voice—within myself, and within the graduates and students I worked alongside.
Through collecting and reflecting on data from sessions, I came to realise that the structure of dialogue and the space it occupies matter greatly. I noticed how language and cultural differences shaped communication and understanding. Some of the language used in sessions was specialised or academic and did not come naturally in everyday conversation. This created hesitation, as students seemed unsure of what was expected of them or how best to respond.
Students often stayed in familiar groups and occupied particular areas of the room, which quickly formed small pockets of exclusion. When graduates or tutors stayed in one part of the space, this separation became more pronounced. It reminded me that physical movement and positioning strongly influence participation and inclusion. I also became aware that my presence affected the group’s tone. When I joined conversations, students often fell silent and waited for direction, revealing something about underlying power dynamics. I was positioned as a holder of knowledge rather than a collaborator. This prompted me to reconsider how I manage authority and to decide when to intervene or step back.
At times, students seemed uncertain whether to make statements or ask questions, showing low confidence and reinforcing a quiet, passive atmosphere. Despite these challenges, there was a sense of goodwill and cooperation within session. Students supported one another and responded positively when given a clear yet flexible structure that allowed space for adaptation. Movement again proved important: when students walked around to observe or engage with others, participation became more active. One graduate noticed a small group being left out and deliberately moved towards them, shifting the tone of the room and modelling inclusion.
By the end of the session, inclusion, movement, and reflection stood out as key themes. The experience felt almost theatrical, with timing, visibility, and awareness shaping facilitation. The process of collecting data made me more aware of my own positioning and how I moved between being a leader, an observer, and a facilitator. I wrote notes about moments of personal conflict—asking when to intervene, when to hold back, and how to manage visibility and silence. Facilitation began to feel like performance, in which every movement, every pause, and every choice of language shaped participation.
“When a word is deprived of its dimension of action, reflection automatically suffers as well; and the word is changed into idle chatter, into verbalism, into an alienated and alienating ‘blah.’ It becomes an empty word, one which cannot denounce the world, for denunciation is impossible without a commitment to transform, and there is no transformation without action.”
This reinforced my realisation that dialogue is collective: it only becomes meaningful through participation, shared responsibility, and the willingness to act upon reflection.
See attached