Skip to main content

Between-case dialogue: public engagement in the second-person voice

Abstract

Interactive public engagement on challenging environmental issues centres on dialogue, which typically focuses on views about an issue, conflict or need to act. Participants are conceived as individuals who have and can change such views. Accordingly, theory and practice attend to the variables and contexts conducive to sharing and developing views. Less attention is accorded the ‘lived experience’ that gives the personalising contexts people carry into dialogue and the stories they tell. This article scrutinises the merits of focusing on the dialogic exchange of stories, treated as cases of experience in the round. An ideal–typical between-case dialogue entails first-person case stories (‘what I see’) and second-person responses (‘what I see, from my perspective, what you see from yours’). The second-person voice operates between unique individual narratives, but retains the insights of their temporal–spatial specificity. A dialogic engagement can discover locally generalisable patterns and create new second-person understandings that advance policy aims: ‘what we see’ and, therefore, ‘what we see can (or should) be done’.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. Submissions available on the EPA website (EPA nd) or on request from the author.

  2. Other than the salmon case, thee examples stem from my experiments, together with colleagues in New Zealand; see also Wolf (2013, 2014).

References

  • Abelson J, Montesanti S, Li K, Gauvin F-P, Martin E (2010) Effective strategies for interactive public engagement in the development of healthcare policies and programs. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreasen A (2002) Marketing social marketing in the social change marketplace. J Public Policy Market 21:3–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth PD (2006) Seeing oneself as a carer in the activity of caring: attending to the lifeworld of a person with Alzheimer’s disease. Int J Qual Stud Health Wellbeing 1(4):212–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barge JK, Little M (2002) Dialogical wisdom, communicative practice, and organizational life. Commun Theory 12(4):375–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger PL, Luckmann T (1979) The social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Penguin, Harmondsworth

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesta G, Burbules NC (2003) Pragmatism and educational research. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchill SD (2012) Resoundings of the flesh: caring for others by way of ‘second person’ perspectivity. Int J Qual Stud Health Wellbeing. doi:10.3402/qhw.v3407i3400.8187

    Google Scholar 

  • Crossley N (1996) Intersubjectivity: the fabric of social becoming. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (nd) New Zealand King Salmon proposal. http://www.epa.govt.nz/Resource-management/previous/king-salmon/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed 10 January 2015

  • Flecha R, Soler M (2014) Communicative methodology: successful actions and dialogic democracy. Curr Sociol Monogr 62(2):232–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gadamer HG (2000) Subjectivity and intersubjectivity, subject and peson. Cont Philos Rev 33:275–287 (first published 1975)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner ME (2006) Everyday knowledge. Theory Cult Soc 23(2–3):205–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie A, Cornish F (2009) Intersubjectivity: towards a dialogical analysis. J Theory Soc Behav 1:19–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene JC, Hall JN (2010) Dialectics and pragmatism: being of consequence. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C (eds) SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, 2nd edn. Sage, Los Angeles, pp 119–144

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O, Peacock R (2005) Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narratve approach to systematic review. Soc Sci Med 61:417–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins MA, Saleem FZ (2012) The omnipresent personal narrative: story formulation and the interplay among narratives. J Organ Chang Manag 25(2):204–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hookway C (2013) Pragmatism. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/pragmatism/

  • Isaacs W (1999) Dialogue and the art of thinking together. Currency, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Josselson R (2007) Narrative research and the challenge of accumulating knowledge. In: Bamberg M (ed) Narrative: state of the art. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD) (2014) Engagement streams framework. http://www.ncdd.org/files/rc/2014_Engagement_Streams_Guide_Web.pdf. Accessed 5 January 2015

  • Parker J, Duignan P (2005) Dialogue methods: a typology of community dialogue processes. http://www.parkerduignan.com/documents/132pdf.PDF. Accessed 4 January 2015

  • Parsons JA, Lavery JV (2012) Brokered dialogue: a new research method for controversial health and social issues. BMC Med Res Methodol. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-1-92

    Google Scholar 

  • Peace R, Wolf A, Hutchinson I (2012) Opinion-based evaluative inquiry: pragmatism and intersubjectivity [poster presentation] evaluation in complex ecologies: relationships, responsibilities, relevance: 26th annual conference of the American evaluation association, Minneapolis, MN

  • PytlikZillig LM, Tomkins A (2011) Public engagement for informing science and technology policy: what do we know, what do we need to know, and how will we get there? Rev Policy Res 28(2):197–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values 30(2):251–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scharmer CO (2009) Theory U: leading from the future as it emerges. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge P (1999) Foreword. In: Isaacs W (ed) Dialogue and the art of thinking together. Currency, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Shotter J (2006) Understanding process from within: an argument for ‘withness’-thinking. Organ Stud 27(4):585–604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson W (1953) The study of behavior. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart AF (1997) Elements of knowledge: pragmatism, logic, and inquiry. Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas G (2010) Doing case study: abduction not induction, phronesis not theory. Qual Inq 16(7):575–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toren C (2009) Intersubjectivity as epistemology. Soc Anal 53(2):130–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf A (2013) Readiness and persuasion in transformative learning for sustainable responses to climate change. Proceedings: transformation in a changing climate. University of Oslo, Oslo, pp 227–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf A (2014) The interview in Q methodology: readiness to adopt sustainable responses to climate change. SAGE Research Methods Cases [online]. Sage, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I thank Priya Kurian and Debashish Munshi for suggesting the mosaic metaphor and for the opportunity to present an earlier version of this paper in Hamilton, New Zealand, in February 2014.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amanda Wolf.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wolf, A. Between-case dialogue: public engagement in the second-person voice. J Environ Stud Sci 6, 609–616 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0296-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0296-y

Keywords

  • Dialogue
  • Environmental challenges
  • Experience
  • Public engagement
  • Second-person voice