Abstract
This chapter outlines and reflects upon how the method of dialogue café can function to promote young people’s active participation in research regarding young people in vulnerable life situations. The aim is to address the research question What are the potentials and challenges of using the dialogue café as an approach in a participatory action research context? After presenting experiences from one of the dialogue cafés in the interdisciplinary and participatory action project Youth in flight, the chapter will introduce an epistemological and conceptual framework for the idea of a dialogue café as a research approach. Based on the experiences from the café, informed by Bakhtin and Freire’s theoretical perspectives on dialogue, the chapter identifies and discusses core tensions, dilemmas and conflicts that can occur as a result of this approach; Power imbalance, the tension between the idea of empowerment in the encounter with claims of controlling the research process, protecting vulnerability and ensuring privacy constraints. The chapter reflects upon what might be the researcher’s particular responsibility when involving vulnerable young people in this kind of meeting, and suggests its potential: The dialogue café can be seen as a laboratory, where dilemmas and power relations are exposed, and which in turn makes it possible to explore, expand and exceed the distribution of power.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bakhtin, M. (1984). Problems of Dostoyesky’s poetics (C. Emerson, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press.
Biesta, G. (2007). Education and the democratic person: Towards a political conception of democratic education. Teachers College Record, 109(3), 740–769.
Biesta, G. (2014). From experimentalism to existentialism: Writing in the margins of philosophy of education. In L. J. Waks (Ed.), Leaders in philosophy of education: Intellectual self-portraits (Second Series). Sense Publishers.
Bornemark, J. (2017). Neutrality or phronetic skills: A paradox in the praxis of citizen dialogues organized by municipal administration. Social Pedagogy, 3(65), 51–66.
Brown, J.,& Isaacs, D. (2005). The World Café: Shaping our futures through conversations that matter. Berrett-Hoehler.
Ekman Philips, M., & Huzzard, T. (2007). Developmental magic? Two takes on a dialogue conference. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(1), 8–25.
Fitzgerald, R., Graham, A., Smith, A., Taylor, N. (2009). Children’s participation as a struggle over recognition: Exploring the promise of dialogue. In B. Percy-Smith & N. Thomas (Eds.), A handbook of children and young people's participation: Perspectives from theory and practice (pp. 315–327). Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977 edited by Colin Gordon. Brighton: Harvester Press.
Follesø, R. (2010). Ungdom, risiko og anerkjennelse; hvordan støtte vilje til endring? Tidsskrift for Ungdomsforskning, 10(1), 73–87.
Follesø, R. (2015). Youth at risk or terms at risk? Young, 23(3), 240–253.
Follesø, R., Halås, C., & Anvik, C. (2016). Sett, hørt og forstått? Om profesjonelle møter med unge i sårbare livssituasjoner. Universitetsforl.
Fook, J., Johannessen, A., & Psoinos, M. (2011). Partnership in Practice Research: A Norwegian Experience. Social Work & Society, 9(1). Practice Research.
Forskningsetiske komiteer. (2016). Forskningsetiske retningslinjer for samfunnsvitenskap, humaniora, juss og teologi.
Fouché, C., Light, G. (2010). An invitation to dialogue ‘The World Café’ in social work research. Qualitative Social Work, 10(1), 28–48.
Freire, P., Ramos, M., & Macedo, D. (2014). Pedagogy of the oppressed (Thirtieth anniversary ed.). Bloomsbury.
Gadamer, H. G. (2003). Forståelsens filosofi / utvalgte hermeneutiske skrifter. Cappelen.
Gjermestad, A., Luteberget, L., Midjo, T., & Witsø, A. (2019). Preparing a dialogue conference together with persons with intellectual disabilities. Nordic Social Work Research, 1–13.
Graham, A., & Fitzgerald, R. (2010). Progressing children’s participation: Exploring the potential of a dialogical turn. Childhood, 17(3), 343–359.
Graham, A., Powell, M. A., & Taylor, N. (2015). Ethical research involving children: Encouraging reflexive engagement in research with children and young people. Children & Society, 29(5), 331–343.
Habermas, J. (1999). Kraften i de bedre argumenter. Ad Notam Gyldendal.
Halås, C. T. (2012). Ungdom i svev. Å oppdage muligheter med utsatte unge. Phd- avhandling, Universitetet i Nordland
Healy, K. (2001). Participatory action research and social work: A critical appraisal. International Social Work, 44(1).
Holstein, J., Gubrium, J. F. (2009). The active interview. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research—Theory, method and practice (2nd ed.). Sage.
Honneth, A. (2005). The struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts. Polity Press.
Ingulfsvann, A.S., Jakobsen, O., & Nystad, Ø. (2015). Developing sustainable societies—A dialogical network perspective. International Journal of Social Economics;
Jorgenson, J., & Steier, F. (2013). Frames, framing, and designed conversational processes. Lessons from the World Café. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 49(3) 388–405. NTL Institute Reprints and Permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886313484511.
Kellett, M. (2011). Empowering children and young people as researchers: Overcoming barriers and building capacity. Child Indicators Research, 4(2), 205–219.
Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014). The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research (1st ed.). Springer Singapore.
Kögler, H. (1999). The power of dialogue: Critical hermeneutics after Gadamer and Foucault. MIT Press.
Lansdown, G. (2011). Every child’s to be heard—A resource guide on the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child General Comment no. 12. Save the Children and UNICEF.
Lundy, L. (2007). Voice is not enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), 927–942.
Mittelmark, M., & Hauge, H. (2003). Helsefremmende arbeid i en brytningstid: Fra monolog til dialog? Fagbokforlaget[Health promoting work in a period of change: From monologue to dialogue].
Montoya, M., & Kent, E. (2011). Dialogical action: Moving from community-based to community-driven participatory research. Qualitative Health Research, 21(7), 1000–1011.
Morgan, D. (1997). The focus groups as qualitative research. London.
Natland, S., Bjerke, E., & Torstenssen, T. B. (2019). Opplevelser av god hjelp i møter med Nav. Fontene Forskning, 12(1), 17–29.
Olsen, T. (2007). Bordet fanger—temakafe som arbeidsform. Arbeidsnotat Nordlandsforskning.
Pålshaugen, Ø. (1992). Aksjonsforskning: En nyttig vitenskap? Et innspill i fire satser. Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning.
Pålshaugen. Ø. (2014). Dialogues in innovation: Interactive learning and interactive research as means for a context sensitive regional innovation policy. International Journal of Action Research, 10(2).
Phillips, L. (2011). The promise of dialogue: The dialogic turn in the production and communication of knowledge. John Benjamins.
Phillips, L., Kristiansen, M., Vehviläinen, M., & Gunnarsson, E. (2012). Characteristics and challenges of collaborative research: Further perspectives on reflexive strategies. In Knowledge and power in collaborative research: A reflexive approach (pp. 263–288). Routledge.
Philips, M. E., & Huzzard, T. (2007). Developmental magic? Two takes on a dialogue conference. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(1), 8–25.
Prewitt, V. (2011). Working in the Café: Lessons in group dialogue. The Learning Organization, 18(5), 350–363. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696471111151693.
Seim, S., & Slettebø, T. (2011). Collective participation in child protection services: partnership or tokenism? European Journal of Social Work, 14(4), 497–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2010.500477.
Shamrova, D., & Cummings, C. (2017). Participatory action research (PAR) with children and youth: An integrative review of methodology and PAR outcomes for participants, organizations, and communities. Children and Youth Services Review, 81, 400–412.
Funding
The research on which this chapter is based was funded by Nord University and County Governor of Nordland, Norway.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Halås, C.T. (2021). The Dialogue Café as a Participatory Method in Research—Potentials and Challenges. In: Wulf-Andersen, T., Follesø, R., Olsen, T. (eds) Involving Methods in Youth Research. Studies in Childhood and Youth. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75941-4_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75941-4_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-75940-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-75941-4
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)