39

Dialogue as socially just communication

Jeremy Kedian
University of Waikato, New Zealand

Abstract:
Today’s school leaders seemingly face an ever-increasing array of competing demands and challenges. They are
expected to be innovative, transformational and expert while, at the same time, sharing many of the leadership
processes, acting in ways that are ethical and socially just, and being highly consultative (Senge, 1994; Stoll,
Fink, & Earl, 2003; West-Burnham & Coates, 2006). Together, these expectations place the building of
effective interpersonal relationships at the heart of leadership and, thereby, raise the primacy of pervasive
communication as an essential aspect of leadership. Thus, this article focuses on dialogue as a form of
communication befitting the requirements of contemporary school leadership. It argues that dialogue
contributes to a form of communal professionalism in which there is a reduction in barriers between school
principals, other leaders, teaching staff, parents in schools, and students. It is in this respect, it is argued,
that dialogue is able to automatically promote school leadership practices that effectively address equality
and social justice concerns.

Keywords: Social justice; dialogue; communication for social justice; communication coaching and mentoring;
communication for learning; effective communication for leading/leadership

Introduction
School leaders face an array of competing demands and challenges. They are expected to be innovative,
transformational and expert (Senge, 1994; Stoll et al. 2003; West-Burnham & Coates, 2006). In addition,
they are expected to share many of the leadership processes, act in ways that are ethical and socially just,
and be highly consultative while maintaining a strong focus on student achievement. Moreover, their role
is extraordinarily complex in terms of the range, depth and scope of activities (Kedian, 2002). They are
frequently required to act immediately, with little time for reflection, perhaps because of some or other
emergency or ministerial requirement. The nature of the role and institution requires them to perform
multiple functions simultaneously, and they are frequently confronted by ambiguities – professional,
human, ethical, legal and others. These characteristics are sometimes difficult to grasp as they can be
somewhat intangible, yet ignoring them can lead to a dislocation in the processes of the organization.
In addition, within the educational leadership literature during the past 15 years, there has emerged
a strong movement towards the concepts of shared or distributed leadership (Fairhurst & Uhl-Bien, 2012;
Harris, 2009; Harris & Lambert, 2003; Pearce & Conger, 2002; Spillane, 2003; Spillane, Halverson &
Diamond, 2001). Here, shared or distributed leadership is regarded as an “emergent property of a group
or network of interacting individuals” (Bennett, Wise & Woods, 2003, p. 7). Essentially, these forms of
school leadership are characterized by leadership activities enacted within and by groups, rather than by
individuals acting out prescribed hierarchical roles. Importantly, this emphasis upon shared or distributed
school leadership, highlights the benefits of collaboration, reciprocity, shared purpose and shared ownership
in leading educational change (Lefoe, Parish, Hart, Smigiel, & Pannan, 2008).
Both distributed and shared leadership reflect the emergent understanding that the nature and role
of school leadership has evolved to a point where it is extraordinarily difficult for a single person to
act effectively in the role. Consequently, there is a general move towards school leaders drawing on the
40 Dialogue as socially just communication

expertize and involvement of other staff in order to maximize the benefits for students and the school
(Gronn, 2002a; Harris, 2004; Mayrowetz, 2008). This form of leadership resists representations of
heroic leaders and passive followers, and implies that boundaries of leadership are inclusive rather than
exclusive (Davison, Brown, Pharo, Warr, McGregor, Terkes, Boyd, & Abuodha, 2013). This suggests that
different individuals, alone and collectively, are likely to lead the group at different times depending on
the specific challenge being faced and the specific context in which it is to be addressed (Bennett et al.,
2003; Gronn, 2002b). While this form of leadership has the potential for providing a powerful contribution
to the functioning of the school, a number of assumptions are made about the nature and extent of the
interpersonal relationships required to attain this potential. It is only when the knowledge, skills, expertize
and interests of all are seen, acknowledged and appreciated that the full potential of shared or distributed
leadership is able to be attained.
Hence, leading is essentially a relational activity (Dyer, 2001). Indeed, it would appear that
‘effective’ leaders are adept at developing interpersonal relationships in order to further the aims of the
organization, to increase the nature and effectiveness of the leaders’ impacts, and to promote the process
of creating various communities of interest and practice within the organization. In other words, the
building of effective interpersonal relationships is at the heart of leadership, which raises the primacy of
pervasive communication (communication strategies or approaches that include and inform all members
of an organization) as an essential aspect of leadership (Uhl-Bien, 2006; Cunliffe & Eriksen, 2011). More
specifically, in the context of educational leadership as a relational phenomenon, the leader’s ability to
communicate is deemed to be fundamental (Harris, Day, Hadfield, Hopkins, Hargreaves & Chapman, 2003;
Leithwood & Riehl, 2003). This communicative ability is said to have the potential to inform professional
practice, influence organizational culture, develop appropriate socio-cultural links, build a learning-full
environment, and link schools with their communities. However, the nature of this communication is
variable and culturally located. It can be exclusive, divisive and polarized, or inclusive, democratic and
socially positive. Ideally, it should be socially just and agentic to meet the needs of the organization and
the individuals within it.
While the literature supports the evolution of relational forms of leadership, there is a conspicuous
absence of theorising around the format and nature of the communication required to facilitate and support
such sharing. Hence, this article seeks to address this perceived theoretical deficiency by describing in detail a
particular form of communication. Specifically, it describes dialogue as an ideal form of communication for
supporting democratic, equal and emancipatory professional relationships that have the potential to develop
and enhance collaboration in communities of practice (Kimble, Hodreth & Bourdon, 2008; Matusov &
Marjanovic-Shane, 2012). To this end, this article dwells on the intellectually rigorous and creative nature
of dialogue and refers to a specific example of its use as a socially just form of communication. It illustrates
how dialogue requires the development of different attitudes and abilities on the part of all participants.
Moreover, I argue that the nature and practice of dialogue not only challenges traditional boundaries of oral
communication but inherently promotes equity and social justice.

The nature of oral communication

The way in which people communicate orally is a learned behaviour (Gergen, 1994, 2009; Richards &
Schmidt, 2014) and, as such, it largely serves self needs and interests formed in response to a myriad of
life experiences. Branson (2014) develops an erudite argument when describing the relationship between
life experiences and the development of personal behaviour. He proposes that life experiences contribute
to the way in which we encounter, perceive, interpret and respond to the world around us. From these life
experiences emerge personal motives and values, which then inform and influence our beliefs and personal
 JEREMY KEDIAN 41

behaviours. He notes further, however, that an inherent part of the human condition is the existence of
emotions – the affective domain – to which all humans are subject. These emotions begin to colour the way
in which our values and beliefs are manifested in our behaviours. Importantly, this understanding explains
the genesis of each person’s idiosyncratic behaviour because it illustrates how human behaviour is founded
upon a unique personal interpretation of different life experiences. Furthermore, it highlights how much of
our behaviour is directed towards the service of self needs and interests.
Hence, oral communication, as a basic but important form of human behaviour, is also idiosyncratic
and largely serves self needs and interests. Arguably, these self needs and interests can, at times, prevent people
from communicating in the most effective manner. This may be the consequence of an inadequate or unfamiliar
conceptual or linguistic lexicon, or be based upon personal biases or predispositions, or aligned with personal
levels of comfort in participating in individual or group activities, or created from a lack of familiarity with
specific contexts, or formed as an outcome of other influences associated with self needs or interests.
Various authors (see, for example, Cranton, 2006; Mezirow, 2000) argue that productive
communication for learning occurs most effectively when all group members are able to participate
equitably. The existence of power relationships and hierarchical structures within many groups potentially
creates a barrier to effective communication within the group. Contemporary organizational theory argues
that power relations in a group have the potential to suppress the multiple voices required to produce better
ideas and decisions that benefit the organization (Bohm, 1987; Gergen, 2009; Poulakos, 1974; Senge,
Scharmer, Jaworski & Flowers, 2008). Similarly, hierarchies have the potential to reduce relational activity
and mitigate against this form of professional sharing (Page & Meerabeau, 2004). Any organizational
attitude that perverts communication denies opportunities for the sharing of impressions and ideas, and this
diminishes the ultimate benefits to the organization (Collarbone & West-Burnham, 2008).
Moreover, it is noteworthy that commonly regarded organizational structures and principles within
schools actively mitigate against a collaborative approach to organizational leadership (West-Burnham,
2009; Bush, 2011). Frequently, the opinions of more established and experienced school personnel tend
to reduce or negate the voices of the less experienced. This less experienced group could include staff,
students, parents and other members of the school’s community. These negative outcomes may not be
intentional but rather result from belief systems and emotions, or may simply be historical. Hence, the
development and use of a form of communication that is socially just and equitable, that allows the voices
of all participants to be heard and understood, that allows the principal to develop and sustain effective
interpersonal relationships throughout the school community, and that maximizes the contribution of each
person, is central to the success of school leadership. The key is in finding a form of communication that
enables these outcomes to be achieved.

Understanding dialogue
Developing alternative concepts and practices around oral communication requires different behaviours and
a different conceptual lexicon (Matusov, 2009). As previously argued, oral communication is a personally
constructed behavior since the manner in which we choose to communicate - our personalized form of oral
communication - reflects our values and beliefs. If the intention is to develop inclusivity and equality that
acknowledges the centrality and importance of each individual’s contributions, there is a need to develop
a congruent form of oral communication. Indeed, for the practice of contemporary school leadership,
an ideal form of oral communication is one that establishes the equality of the participants, encourages
individuals to contribute, acknowledges and values their contributions equally, and seeks to hear all voices.
In addition, it should create opportunities to understand, analyse, refine and share perceptions, insights and
possible solutions in order to establish common understandings with a potential for innovation. Such a form
42 Dialogue as socially just communication

would be located in a social constructionist paradigm as it develops an opportunity for sharing insights and
understanding (Arnett, 1997; Lock & Strong, 2010; Maranhao, 1990; Rogers, 1995). This is underpinned by
an understanding of the dialogic process.
Dialogue as a modern term, is derived from two ancient Greek words dia and logos. Dia is usually
translated as ‘through’ or ‘between’. Logos is generally translated as meaning ‘word’ (Cissna & Anderson,
1998; Isaacs, 2008; Stewart, 1978). Dialogue is also understood as a flow of meaning between people (Bohm,
2013) or relationship (Isaacs, 1993). It can be translated as space (‘between us’) and ‘the between’ (Buber,
1958). Shields and Edwards (2005) offer an interpretation by Heraclitus in which logos is understood to
signify “an ordering principle of the world …[that represents] the unity that exists in experience, the oneness
in which all things participate” (p. 14). Clearly, there can be no single translation of dia logos. As dialogue
is firmly located in a social constructionist paradigm, this is perhaps appropriate, as it is the participants in a
dialogue who construct for themselves a contextually appropriate understanding of the process.
There is a substantial tradition of the dialogue first described by Socrates. In more modern times,
various dialogicians have championed the power and value of dialogue as a form of communication that is
both equitable and emancipatory (Buber, 2003; Gadamer, 1960; Gergen, 2009; Hirschkop & Shepherd, 2001;
Poulakos, 1974; Wiercinski, 2011). Also, Sutton (as cited in Kedian, Giles, Morrison, & Fletcher, 2015) refers
to the Bakhtinian use of the word ‘dialogic’. In this, he refers to three interrelated ways of perceiving it that
are relevant to professional learning:

the first as a “process of shared enquiry that involves an endless posing and answering of
questions”; the second as “a way of speaking and writing which is open, and which endeavours
to cross the boundary, but not efface the difference between self and other”; and the third as
“ways of knowing which recognize the contingency of all knowledge.” (p. 5)
Be all this as it may, it is perhaps curious that the literature abounds with descriptions of what dialogue is not – it
is not debate, discussion or skillful conversation. Debate is essentially a process based on a fight or contention
in words; an argument in which the purpose is to have another accept the proposed point of view (Buber, 2003;
Gergen, 1991). There is little sense of compromise as the participants’ perspectives are often polarized and in
contention. It is a contest. Discussion appears to represent an investigation and includes reasoning although, at
its simplest level, it remains an argument in words - an attempt to persuade another. It is inherently contentious
(Gergen, 1991). Whereas discussion focuses on persuasion, dialogue focuses on meaning. Isaacs (1993) defines
dialogue as “a sustained, collective inquiry, into the processes, assumptions, and certainties that compose
everyday experience. Yet the experience is of a special kind - the experience of the meaning embodied in a
community of people” (p. 25). Moreover, Cissna and Anderson (1988) identify a number of characteristics of
dialogue and suggest that these are perhaps more useful than a definition as they lead to a depth of understanding
rather than a linear description. Some of the characteristics they identify include: immediacy of presence,
emergent unanticipated consequences, recognition of strange otherness, collaborative orientation, vulnerability,
mutual implication, temporal flow, genuineness, high trust and authenticity.
Dialogue can be thought of as an ordered, but semi-structured, approach to oral communication
that occurs in a high trust environment that supports and facilitates communication and the sharing of ideas
(Matusov, 2009). Importantly dialogue does not necessarily lead to a process of decision-making, nor is a
decision a required outcome of a dialogue (Isaacs, 1999). Isaacs (1999) argues that moves towards decision-
making tend to reduce sharing and questioning, whereas dialogue “seeks to open possibilities and see new
options” (p. 45). A part of dialogue is the process of ‘bringing into being’ an opportunity to share the concepts,
thoughts and ideas of participants in a group. This sharing process is inclusive and values equally the
 JEREMY KEDIAN 43

contributions of participants. Buber (1958) refers to this as ‘being in relation’ to others in the group. He sees
the potential for dialogue to create moments of inspiration as a consequence of the ‘between space’.
Importantly, although dialogue is sometimes criticized for being indulgent, in that there are no
prescribed outcomes, it is intentional (Bohm, 2013; Isaacs, 1993, 1999; Shields & Edwards, 2005). Indeed, a
specific and intentional outcome of dialogue is inclusive sharing in order to grow understanding and innovation
in the process of constructing knowledge. Dialogue, therefore, is generally perceived as a highly inclusive,
democratic and egalitarian form of communication that empowers participants to express their thinking in
an environment of respect, trust and positive sharing, and encourages mutual attempts at understanding the
concepts and ideas expressed by others. It acknowledges personal feelings, biases and predispositions; the
funds of knowledge that participants bring to the ‘between space’; it encourages critique, intellectual rigour
and true innovation, and is located within a social constructionist philosophy. This form of oral communication,
I argue, is essentially emancipatory, and represents a socially just and highly inclusive milieu.

Dialogue as a socially just process

As a socially just form of oral communication, dialogue allows the emergence of moral, personal and
interpersonal development. Its practice encourages the development of relationships, the sharing of concepts,
thoughts and ideas contributed by participants. Through these actions, it tends to reduce marginalization by
acknowledging and welcoming diversity. Hence, Gergen (2009) suggests that dialogue acknowledges and
values others to the point that the group becomes a community of learners in which each participant is valued
as an individual and as a participant.
However, it would be wrong to presume that such an inclusive approach will lack purpose and direction.
The power and observable benefits of the emerging relationship that develops in a dialogue facilitates a degree
of rigour rarely observed in other forms of group communication. The social equity and collegiality within
a group, and the higher level of interpersonal understanding, increases the participants’ ability to eliminate
deficit notions of difference. Consequently, it increases the opportunities for identifying the intrusion of
external influences such as gender, age, ethnicity, language, physical or intellectual disadvantage, and other
factors. In this way, it begins to create a socially just order and a new form of social coherence (Freire, 2000).
The group is able to coalesce around the ‘space between us’ as it develops a new conceptual and linguistic
lexicon. In doing so, participants encourage the contribution of specific ideas and thoughts and also embrace
the multiple worldviews of participants. Importantly, the dialogical process recognizes and accepts ambiguity.
It deals with contradiction by accepting the opportunity to sustain contending perspectives without the need
to resolve any apparent tension. In this way, those who hold contending perspectives are not marginalized but
rather seen as contributors of different views. This ‘different-ness’ is valued.

The key characteristics of dialogue

Dialogue as a process can be initially problematic as it requires participants to relinquish habitual and
programmed ways of participating in an exchange of views. It requires participants to listen in a far more
profound, analytical, inclusive and accepting way than is common. It goes beyond the common description
of ‘active listening’ and requires listeners to engage intellectually, emotionally, spiritually and collectively.
It requires a rigour seldom associated with the process of listening. In this sense, there is a change of
consciousness as participants devote their intellectual capacity to understanding a perspective being offered
by the speaker.
In dialogue, silence is common. This is in stark contrast to most conversations or discussions in which
there is seldom silence. This could be a consequence of all participants wishing to contribute as soon as
44 Dialogue as socially just communication

possible in order to lodge their idea with the group. An inevitable consequence of this is a reduced focus on
what is being said by others in order both to prepare a personal response and find an opportunity in which to
present it. This lack of silence reduces the opportunities for individual and group reflection. But this is not
the case during a dialogue. It is entirely permissible for one or other participant to call for silence in order to
reflect on an individual’s statement, or to focus on personal thoughts that have been provoked or stimulated
by the statement, or to reflect on how the statement may influence one’s current understanding, thinking or
way of being. Kedian et al. (2015) suggest that silence creates space for an internal dialogue within oneself
and that it is this internal dialogue that can lead to clarity of thought and understanding. It is this silence that
is the basis of the emancipatory nature of dialogue. It is this silence that allows us to look past the obvious
and explore what is in ‘the space between us’ and beyond. Arnett (1981) supports this notion when suggesting
that, “dialogue is found in neither one nor the other of the partners, nor in both added together, but in their
interchange” (p. 203).
An essential element of dialogue is its capacity to enable participants to open themselves to new
thinking. This is central to the dialogic process as it implies that the participants are able to move from
what they already ‘know’ towards different insights they may develop as a consequence of the process of
profound listening and analysing. Shields (2004) argues that this is the basis or beginning of transformational
practice. Dialogue allows participants to focus on the ‘here and now’, and reflect on what the current focus
might mean for the future. It allows participants to free their minds from preconceptions and prescriptions.
Arguably, school leaders, because of the competing demands on their time, appear to respond frequently in
somewhat traditional and stereotypically ‘safe’ ways to increasingly complex issues and contexts (Maxcy,
1994). Developing a dialogue around these complex demands allows the emergence of innovative, generative
approaches.
Dialogue permits participants to wonder - to explore the ‘untold’, to interrogate the unspoken, to
create opportunities for participants to identify and share their biases, predispositions and assumptions.
By encouraging this aspect of the dialogue, participants are empowered to share their values, experiences,
emotions and thinking. To this end, Rogers (2007) posits that this can only happen when one “is genuine and
without ‘front’ or facade, openly being the feelings and attitudes which at the moment are flowing in him” (p.
242). Arnett (1981) adopts a contrary view based on the assertion that “in a dialogue, feelings and attitudes
emerge between persons, not in them” (p. 204). Despite these contrasting views of how the outcome occurs,
there remain two constructive consequences of it. First, the participants are empowered to be who they are by
the legitimising influence of the dialogic process. Secondly, it promotes shared thinking by communicating
in an environment that is honest, trusting and safe. This level of honesty allows participants to share their
areas of competence in a manner that contributes to the growth of the group and acknowledges individual
expertize. It acknowledges simultaneously that all participants have areas in which they may not have
particularly high levels of competence. Nonetheless, these may be areas in which they need to develop. The
dialogic environment allows participants to share areas of weakness and to become vulnerable in the learning
and sharing process. This is empowering in the sense that it acknowledges individual worth and accepts
the realities of each individual participant, eliminates (or at least minimizes) peripheral aspects, and allows
participants to engage in substantive and highly focused collective thought.
Dialogue offers a powerful and creative opportunity to wonder by developing an environment in which
all ideas are first valued then critiqued, analysed and refined. Many Western education systems are driven by
a neo-liberal ideology (Thrupp, 2006; Thrupp & Willmott, 2003). An outcome of this is that many leaders
are expected to ‘know’. It is assumed that they, and other professional colleagues, have a level of knowledge
that equips them appropriately for their roles. In some respects, of course, this is probably correct. However,
this sense of knowing is often unhelpful when it impedes innovation in learning, leading, organizational
 JEREMY KEDIAN 45

development or relationships. More powerful than knowing is the notion of wondering, a process whereby the
participants can begin to engage in intelligent speculation and the co-construction of new knowledge. This
process of wondering is a powerful initiating force for creativity (Argyris, 1990). It allows the participants
to either ignore or build on current orthodoxies in creative ways in order to improve the current context.
The process of ‘knowing’ is essentially one of being able to respond to a given context in a way that is
appropriate for a given organization. Frequently, the response is to offer an acceptable answer, one that is
congruent with current orthodoxy. Arguably, this is safe, but superficial. A more creative response, rather than
offering answers, might be to respond with questions - questions regarding legitimacy, orthodoxy, creativity
and structures. Dialogue encourages this questioning process and generates a dynamic rather than static
organizational context.
In addition, dialogue empowers all voices to respond. When participants in a dialogue place a thought
or concept in the ‘logos’ or ‘space between’, irrespective of how well constructed or erudite the statement, it
immediately becomes the property of the group rather than the initiating participant. The paradox here is that
the moment a participant offers their idea they immediately lose control of that idea. The initial contributor has
little or no control over the consequent development of the final form of the concept, which may be entirely
unintended. Ultimately, this has the potential for a powerful effect on the organization and its members’
contributions and learning. Cissna and Anderson (1998) refer to this particular characteristic of dialogue as
being the source of “emergent unanticipated consequences” (p. 65) – the dynamics of the process influences
the outcome and not the person who speaks or any one individual in the group. Thus these authors argue
further that this loss of control is a central reason why some senior professionals prefer to engage in discussion
rather than dialogue.
A valued element of dialogue is the capacity to move away from current orthodoxies - the journey from
an expert mind to a beginner’s mind where professionals are able to view new situations in creative, generative
ways. The notion of, or distinction between, novice and expert has been the subject of substantial reflection
and writing (Schon, 1987). Commonly in the professional arena, there is an assumption that professionals are
experts, and that length of experience can also be a significant indicator of expertize. This is not only a public
perception but is perhaps inherent in the undergraduate and professional learning of many professionals,
especially in education. A consequence of this assumption that professionals are experts is that they respond
and react in ways that are based on current orthodoxies rather than innovation.
This notion of the ‘expert mind’ also introduces the idea of precedent as a touchstone or guiding
influence. Dialogue allows participants to live in the here and now and to address issues based on emergent,
generative thinking and innovation rather than precedent. Frequently leaders make decisions based on
precedent. While this is generally useful, as it can speed up decision-making processes, it can be harmful in
that innovation is frequently lost in the process. In a similar vein, the notion of expertize based on precedent
frequently leads to a fragmentation of issues, where they are addressed by dissembling problem areas. This is
a commonly used problem-solving strategy and allows precedent-orientated decision-making. Dialogue, on
the other hand, tends to address issues in a more holistic way, allowing for more global perspectives. It both
facilitates and legitimizes educational leaders opening themselves to new thinking in a way that common
communication systems often do not.

In summary
It is not the intention of this article to suggest that dialogue is the only powerful form of communication.
Rather it is one form of communication that appears to be powerful in the sense that it is agentic,
empowering and inclusive. An important underpinning of dialogue is recognition that it offers opportunities
for semi-structured thinking in a group and acknowledges the importance of this to innovative leadership
46 Dialogue as socially just communication

and professional practice. Indeed, a vital consideration for Arnett, Grayson and McDowell (2008) is one
that bears repeating:

dialogue cannot be demanded, and it is a companion to other forms of speech. Martin Buber
outlined monologue, technical dialogue, and dialogue all as essential to human construction.
Whenever people privilege dialogue as the only form of discourse, it fades from a relational
gathering and something darker takes its place. Demand masquerading as dialogue is simply what
it is: demand. (p. 3)
A dialogic approach to oral communication in professional contexts supersedes the more common, traditional
forms of oral communication which are often characterized by transactional delivery and ‘expert to novice’
transmission modes. Dialogic approaches move away from deficit models frequently de-linked from individual
contexts, social justice and ‘voice’, and involve the participant as teacher and learner. Dialogic approaches
lead to practices that are increasingly experiential, grounded and contextual (Giles & Morrison, 2010; Lumby
& English, 2009; Moxley & O’Connor, 1998; Temple & Ylitalo, 2009). They require “an intentional shift
from an instrumental way of acquiring knowledge to the communicative and hopefully emancipatory forms
of knowledge making” (Kedian et al., 2015, p. 3). This approach to inclusive professional learning formed
out of this more holistic form of oral communication acknowledges that, “knowledge is uniquely personal,
subjective and acquired through interaction with others. It recognizes that conversation is a basic mode of human
interaction” (Kedian et al., 2015, p. 4). In addition, it is perceived as emancipatory in that it frees the individual to
move in deliberate ways to direct their personal professional learning, acknowledges personal voice, and allows
full participation.
Dialogue as a form of professional learning acknowledges the social constructionist context in
which it occurs, recognizes the potential contributions of all participants in the learning process and creates
professional learning activities that contribute to personal growth and transformational potential. In this
sense it is both emancipatory and socially just. For example, Kedian et al. (2015) exemplify the advantages
of dialogic practice in their analysis of a four-day biennial International Leadership Institute hosted by the
University of Waikato’s Centre for Educational Leadership Research. The Institute has a declared focus and
all participants are sent a series of readings prior to the start of the process. When meeting, the participants
are divided into groups - usually 6 to 8 per group. After an introductory session outlining the nature and
process of dialogue, participants begin the process. Importantly, the participants are usually teachers,
middle leaders or school principals and senior leadership team members. The disparities in apparent levels
of status and experience are soon eliminated as a significant influence on the dialogue. The experiences
of facilitators of this Institute suggest that the vast majority of participants move from a discursive or
conversational style into a dialogue within a relatively short space of time – approximately 2 hours which
represents the first session.
More germane to this article than descriptions of the Institute are the responses of participants.
Approximately 50% referred to the experience as life changing, as it has offered an opportunity to participate
in a manner not experienced before. Experienced educators perceived it as not only life changing, but
also an outstanding exercise in generative, creative participation leading to substantial changes in their
ways of thinking and being. Similarly, less experienced educators appeared to revel in the experience of
being heard. All participants referred to their appreciation of being accepted unconditionally into a group,
being listened to irrespective of their level of experience, being valued as professionals, contributing as
equals and being empowered to challenge current orthodoxies and the opinions of others in an intellectually
rigorous way in a trusting environment. While listening to the contributions of others, participants reported
that their own thinking led to a substantially more refined conceptualization of their roles and activities. In
 JEREMY KEDIAN 47

addition, they believed that they developed a far greater sense of agency and also experienced social justice
and social constructionism in action.
Thus, this article has outlined the nature, practice and utility of dialogue as a relevant form of oral
communication. In addition to being effective as a form of oral communication, it is intentionally socially
just. It is inclusive, emancipatory, encourages equality, values the contributions of all participants equally,
and encourages the social construction of knowledge. Equally important, it is intellectually rigorous and
creative, and legitimizes challenges to current orthodoxies. It both embodies and epitomizes social justice,
and is entirely appropriate in the field of educational leadership and innovation.

References
Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming organizational defenses: Facilitating organizational learning. Boston,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Arnett, R. C. (1981). Toward a phenomenological dialogue. Western Journal of Speech Communication,
45(3), 201-212.
Arnett, R. C. (1997). Dialogic education: Conversation about ideas and between persons. Carbondale, IL:
SIU Press.
Arnett, R. C., Grayson, C., & McDowell, C. (2008). Dialogue as an “Enlarged Communicative Mentality”:
Review, assessment, and ongoing difference. Communication Research Trends, 27(3), 3–21.
Bennett, N., Wise, C., & Woods, P. (2003). Distributed leadership: Full report. Nottingham, England:
National College for School Leadership.
Bohm, D. (1987). Unfolding meaning. Retrieved from http://www.goodreads.com/work/best_book/1306968-
unfolding-meaning-a-weekend-of-dialogue-with-david-bohm
Bohm, D. (2013). On Dialogue. New York, NY: Routledge. Retrieved from http://static1.squarespace.com/
static/5342e2a7e4b02cbd82d5283d/t/5356f9a1e4b078fcf0974726/1398208929590/dialogue.pdf.
Branson, C. (2014). The power of personal values. In C. Branson & S. Gross (Eds.) Handbook of ethical
educational leadership (pp. 195-210). New York, NY: Routledge.
Buber, M. (1958). I and thou. New York, NY: Scribner.
Buber, M. (2003). Between man and man. London, England: Routledge.
Bush, T. (2011). School leadership development: Top-down or bottom-up? Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 39(3), 258 – 260.
Cissna, K. N., & Anderson, R. (1998). Theorizing about dialogic moments: The Buber-Rogers position and
postmodern themes. Communication Theory, 8(1), 63–104.
Collarbone, P., & West-Burnham, J. (2008). Understanding systems leadership: Securing excellence and
equity in education. Edinburgh, IN: A&C Black.
Cranton, P. (2006). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide for educators of adults
(2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cunliffe, A. L., & Eriksen, M. (2011). Relational leadership. Human Relations, 64(11), 1425–1449.
Davison, A., Brown, P., Pharo, E., Warr, K., McGregor, H., Terkes, S., Boyd, D., & Abuodha, P. (2013).
Distributed leadership. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 15(1), 98-
110.
Dyer, K. M. (2001). Relational leadership. School Administrator, 58(10), 28.
Fairhurst, G. T., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2012). Organizational discourse analysis (ODA): Examining leadership
as a relational process. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(6), 1043–1062.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed: 30th Anniversary Edition. London, England: Continuum.
Gadamer, H. G. (1960). Truth and method. London, England: Continuum.
48 Dialogue as socially just communication

Gergen, K. (1991). The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Gergen, K. J. (1994). Toward transformation in social knowledge (2nd. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gergen, K. J. (2009). Relational being beyond self and community. London, England: Oxford University
Press. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/waikato/Doc?id=10335217.
Giles, D., & Morrison, M. (2010). Exploring leadership as a phenomenon in an educational leadership
paper: An innovative pedagogical approach opens the unexpected. International Journal on
Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 22, 64-70.
Gronn, P. (2002a). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(4), 423–451.
Gronn, P. (2002b). Distributed leadership. In K. Leithwood, P. Hallinger, G. Furman, K. Riley, J. MacBeath,
P. Gronn & B. Mulford (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and
Administration (Vol. 8, pp. 653-696). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Harris, A. (2004). Distributed leadership and school improvement: Leading or misleading? Educational
Management Administration & Leadership, 32(1), 11–24.
Harris, A. (2009). Distributed leadership: Different perspectives. New York, NY: Springer Science &
Business Media.
Harris, A., Day, C., Hopkins, D., Hadfield, M., Hargreaves, A., & Chapman, C. (2003). Effective leadership for
school improvement. London, England: Routledge.
Harris, A., & Lambert, L. (2003). Building leadership capacity for school improvement. London, England:
McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Hirschkop, K., & Shepherd, D. (2001). Bakhtin and cultural theory. Manchester, England: Manchester
University Press.
Isaacs, W. N. (2008). Dialogue: The art of thinking together. New York, NY: Crown Publishing Group.
Isaacs, W. N. (1999). Dialogue and the art of thinking together: A pioneering approach to communicating in
business and in life. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Isaacs, W. N. (1993). Taking flight: Dialogue, collective thinking, and organizational learning. Organizational
Dynamics, 22(2), 24–39.
Kedian, J. (2002). Bimodality, dualism or pluralism in principal development. Paper presented at the National
College for School Leadership, October, Nottingham, England.
Kedian, J., Giles, D., Morrison, M., & Fletcher, M. (2015). Leadership development as a dialogic process: The
rationale and concept of an international leadership institute. International Journal of Leadership in
Education, (in press), 1–21.
Kimble, C., Hildreth, P. M., & Bourdon, I. (2008). Communities of practice: Creating learning environments for
educators. Charlotte, NC: IAP.
Lefoe, G., Parish, D., Hart, G., Smigiel, H., & Pannan, L. (2008). The Green report: The development of
leadership capacity in higher education. Wollongong, NSW: CEDIR, University of Wollongong.
Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2003). What do we already know about successful school leadership? Paper prepared
for the AERA Division A Task Force on Developing Research in Educational Leadership.
Lock, A., & Strong, T. (2010). Social constructionism. London, England: Cambridge University Press.
Lumby, J., & English, F. (2009). From simplicism to complexity in leadership identity and preparation: Exploring
the lineage and dark secrets. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12(2), 95-114.
Maranhao, T. (1990). The Interpretation of dialogue. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Matusov, E. (2009). Journey into dialogic pedagogy. New York, NY: Nova Science.
Matusov, E., & Marjanovic-Shane, A. (2012). Diverse approaches to education: Alienated learning, closed and
open participatory socialization, and critical dialogue. Human Development, 55(3), 159–166.
 JEREMY KEDIAN 49

Maxcy, S. J. (1994). Postmodern school leadership: Meeting the crisis in educational administration.
Portsmouth, NH: Praeger. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED363954.
Mayrowetz, D. (2008). Making sense of distributed leadership: Exploring the multiple usages of the
concept in the field. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 424–435.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. The Jossey-
Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moxley, R. S., & O’Connor Wilson, P. (1998). A systems approach to leadership development. In C. D.
McCauley. R. S. Moxely, & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of
Leadership Development, (pp. 217–241). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Page, S., & Meerabeau, L. (2004). Hierarchies of evidence and hierarchies of education: Reflections on a
multiprofessional education initiative. Learning in Health and Social Care, 3(3), 118–128.
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2002). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. London,
England: Sage.
Poulakos, J. (1974). The components of dialogue. Western Speech, 38(3), 199–212. Retrieved from http://doi.
org/10.1080/10570317409373830
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. (2014). Language and communication. London, England: Routledge.
Rogers, C. (1995). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy (1st ed.). New York, NY:
Mariner Books.
Rogers, C. R. (2007). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change.
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research,Practice, Training, 44(3), 240–248. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
3204.44.3.240
Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the
professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Senge, P., Scharmer, C. Otto, Jaworski, J., & Flowers, B.S. (2008). Presence: Human purpose and the field of the
future. Cambridge, MA: Randomhouse.
Senge, P. M. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New
York, NY: Currency, Doubleday.
Shields, C. M. (2004). Dialogic leadership for social justice: Overcoming pathologies of silence. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 109–132.
Shields, C., & Edwards, M. (2005). Dialogue is not just talk: A new ground for educational leadership. New
York, NY: Peter Lang.
Spillane, J. P. (2003). Educational Leadership. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 343–
346.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed
perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–28.
Stewart, J. (1978). Foundations of dialogic communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 64(1), 183-201.
Stoll, L., Fink, D., & Earl, L. M. (2003). It’s about learning (and it’s about time). London, England: Psychology
Press.
Temple, J. B., & Ylitalo, J. (2009). Promoting inclusive (and dialogic) leadership in higher education institutions.
Tertiary Education and Management, 15(3), 277-289.
Thrupp, M. (2006). School improvement: An unofficial approach. Edinburgh,Scotland: A&C Black.
Thrupp, M., & Willmott, R. (2003). Educational management in managerialist times: Beyond the textural
apologists. London, England: McGraw-Hill Education.
Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing.
The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654–676.
50 Dialogue as socially just communication

West-Burnham, J. (2009). Rethinking educational leadership: From improvement to transformation. New

York, NY: Continuum.
West-Burnham, J., & Coates, M. (2006). Transforming education for every child: A practical handbook.
Edinburgh, England: A&C Black.
Wiercinski, A. (2011). Gadamer’s hermeneutics and the art of conversation. London, England: LIT Verlag
Münster.

Author
Jeremy Kedian is a Senior Lecturer in the Centre for Educational Leadership Research, Te Whiringa School
of Educational Leadership and Policy. In his role he has worked extensively with schools and other educational
institutions, and has a strong interest in leadership theory, organizational theory, dialogue and dialogic approaches,
and the lived experiences of principals as leaders of educational institutions. In addition, he has supported the
development of a number of new schools with a focus on innovative learning spaces and practices.
Email: [email protected]