Dialogue – Integration and Implementation Insights

Moving from epistemic paternalism to transformative transdisciplinarity

February 17, 2026

By David Ludwig and Charbel N. El-Hani.

authors_david-ludwig_charbel-el-hani — 1. David Ludwig (biography)
2. Charbel N. El-Hani (biography)

How can we overcome the epistemic paternalism that has long shaped relations between science and society? How can a transformative vision of transdisciplinarity emerge from the interplay between epistemic diversity and epistemic decolonization?

Demands for transdisciplinary research reflect an intricate politics of knowledge that can be described through a triad of paternalism, diversity, and decolonization. Epistemic paternalism has become widely criticized in many debates about development and modernization. For example, international development projects are often deeply paternalistic by assuming that science and technology of the “developed world” should be simply exported into the “underdeveloped world,” where they are imagined as generating economic growth and societal progress.

Using cross-cultural dialogue to break down inappropriate knowledge hierarchies

March 4, 2025

By Roxana Roos.

How can indigenous, local, artisanal, craft, tacit, counter, gendered and experiential knowledge better inform solutions to complex problems, such as climate change? How—when faced with conditions of complexity, uncertainty and competing tenable knowledge claims—can the actionable knowledge base be pluralized and diversified to include the widest possible range of high-quality, potentially actionable knowledges and sources of relevant wisdom? What are the pitfalls and challenges ahead?

I start with some cautions for the usual practice of transdisciplinary research and then highlight key aspects of cross-cultural dialogue, alongside pitfalls and challenges.

Integration can reproduce undue asymmetries

Transforming North-South academic collaborations through collective reflexivity

March 18, 2025February 18, 2025

By Adriana Moreno Cely, Kewan Mertens and Viola Nilah Nyakato.

authors_adriana-moreno-cely_kewan-mertens_viola-nilah-nyakato — 1. Adriana Moreno Cely (biography)
2. Kewan Mertens (biography)
3. Viola Nilah Nyakato (biography)

How can we challenge entrenched colonial dynamics in North-South academic collaborations and foster meaningful transformation? How can we move away from power asymmetries where Northern partners assume roles as donors and agenda-setters, leaving Southern collaborators as recipients and implementers? How can we promote equitable knowledge production, allowing diverse voices to speak while being open to listening to them?

In grappling with these challenges in our own collaborations, we used collective reflexive dialogues to unpack our complicity in reproducing problematic power dynamics.

Metalogues and their role in communities of practice

August 13, 2024August 13, 2024

By Janet J. McIntyre-Mills

janet-mcintyre-mills — Janet J. McIntyre-Mills (biography)

What is a metalogue? How can metalogues support the work of communities of practice?

A metalogue is a series of asynchronous, iterative conversations, and commentary on transcripts from dialogues, to enable exploring diverse ways of knowing in a community of practice (Wenger et al., 2009).

The term ‘metalogue’ draws on the work of Gregory Bateson (1972) and Nora Bateson (2021) to encourage people to think ecologically and to avoid what Shiva (2012) calls ‘monocultures of the mind’ when addressing areas of concern. In other words to think about relationships within context and to foster ‘an ecology of mind’ with members of a community of practice. The aim is to address an area of shared concern by pooling ideas in a reciprocal manner in order to achieve an agreed goal with people from similar or diverse backgrounds spanning spaces and places.

How can metalogues support the work of communities of practice?

Structured dialogical design

July 10, 2024July 9, 2024

By Yiannis Laouris

How can heterogeneous groups reach consensus on complex issues in a reasonably limited amount of time? What kind of process allows for meaningful community involvement that is genuinely participatory and democratic?

Structured Dialogical Design is a process that achieves both these aims. The key aspects of the process and steps are presented.

Triggering questions

Structured Dialogical Design processes are always structured around triggering questions, which frame the discussions and help define the stakeholders of the issues under consideration. The idea is that those primarily concerned with and/or affected by the issues under consideration should become the primary participants.

For Structured Dialogical Design all stakeholders (or their representatives) concerned with the issues at stake must be included, including those seemingly without a voice (which many of us may not be hearing and are not responsive to listening to, such as the voice of nature).

Learning to use Appreciative Inquiry

January 16, 2024January 16, 2024

By Rachel Arnold

What is Appreciative Inquiry? How does one shift from research that focuses on problems and negative details to the strengths-based approach of Appreciative Inquiry? What are the benefits and requirements of such an approach? And what is it about Appreciative Inquiry that fosters change?

Appreciative Inquiry, developed by David Cooperrider and Suresh Srivastva, is a five-step process (originally four steps), as shown in the figure below. The steps are:

Definition – deciding what to study is critical in moving humans in a positive direction
Discovery – discovering and appreciating best experiences
Dream – imagining the ideal – how it would be if those valued experiences happened most of the time
Design – defining the dream more clearly and discussing steps towards realizing it
Destiny – implementing wide ranging actions, improvisation, learning, and adjustments.

Systemic interventions for complex problems: The Intervention Design Process / Para problemas complejos, intervenciones sistémicas: el Proceso de Diseño de Intervención

October 31, 2023October 24, 2023

By Daniel Marín Vanegas

A Spanish version of this post is available.

What is a useful systemic process for tackling complex societal and environmental problems?

The Intervention Design Process (IDP) is a non-linear approach that integrates different models, methods, techniques, and tools in a set of four iterative stages that are both systematic and systemic (Marín-Vanegas, 2023). The four phases – captured in the acronym IDP-3DC – are:

Diagnosis
Dialogue
Decision
Change.

Generating evidence using the Delphi method

July 8, 2024October 17, 2023

By Dmitry Khodyakov

What is Delphi? How has the Delphi method stood up over time? How can the best of Delphi be adapted to new circumstances and problems?

The Delphi method is a group-based process for eliciting and aggregating opinion on a topic with a goal of exploring the existence of consensus among a diverse group of handpicked experts. The Delphi method was developed at the RAND Corporation in the early 1950s to obtain a reliable expert consensus, which is often used as a substitute for empirical evidence when it does not exist.

The four key characteristics of the Delphi method are:

anonymity,
iterative data collection,
participant feedback, and
statistical determination of group response.

As a result, Delphi has become best practice for quantifying the results of group elicitation processes.

Making the Nominal Group Technique more accessible

September 5, 2023

By Jason Olsen

Looking to gain real insights from those with lived experience about a specific topic? Interested in a low-cost method that fosters equal participation and discussion over participant domination in a research focus group? Want to know about modifications to make pan-disability (ie., working with participants with different impairments) research focus groups more inclusive?

The Nominal Group Technique developed by Ven and Delbecq (1972) has been used for more than 50 years. Key to its success is the posing of a single unambiguous and unbiased question about a problem that can generate a wide range of answers. The process structures the meeting to enable critical dimensions of the question to be identified, ranked and rated in a way that:

limits the influence of the researcher leading the project, as well as the influence of attendees,
allows participants to clarify the question’s dimensions and gaps,
increases the likelihood of equal participation for all group members,
affords equal influence to different, and potentially conflicting, values and ideas.

Creative destruction

November 29, 2022November 8, 2022

By Keith McCandless

author_keith-mccandless — Keith McCandless (biography)

My favorite part of working with groups is helping people notice and stop counterproductive behavior. We all have self-limiting individual and group behaviors. Of course, they are easier to spot in others than in ourselves. So, finding seriously fun ways to help people discover for themselves what they can stop doing is important.

I use an activity called TRIZ from Liberating Structures. The purpose of TRIZ is to:

Make it possible to speak the unspeakable and get skeletons out of the closet
Make space for innovation
Lay the ground for creative destruction by doing the hard work in a fun way
TRIZ may be used before or in place of visioning sessions
Build trust by acting all together to remove barriers.

Ten dialogue methods for integrating judgments

July 15, 2025August 2, 2022

By David McDonald, Gabriele Bammer and Peter Deane

authors_david-mcdonald_gabriele-bammer_peter-deane — 1. David McDonald (biography)
2. Gabriele Bammer (biography)
3. Peter Deane (biography)

What formal dialogue methods can assist researchers in synthesising judgments about a complex societal or environmental issue when a range of parties with different perspectives are involved? How can researchers decide which methods will be most suitable for their purposes?

We review ten dialogue methods. Our purpose is not to describe the dialogue methods in detail, but instead to review the circumstances in which each method is likely to be most useful in a research context, bearing in mind that most methods a) were not developed for research, b) can be applied flexibly and c) have evolved into different variations. The methods are clustered into six groups:

Stakeholder engagement primer: 8. Generating ideas and reaching agreement

March 18, 2025December 2, 2021

By Gabriele Bammer

primer_stakeholder-engagement_8

What skills for generating ideas and reaching agreement should every researcher involved in stakeholder engagement seek to cultivate? What key methods and concepts should they be familiar with?

The focus in this blog post is on generating ideas and reaching agreement, as well as recognising the “groan zone” between these two phases in a group process. Researchers will have diverse attributes and not everyone will be well-placed to cultivate the skills described here. Having an understanding of the skills can help in choosing the researchers best placed to undertake the stakeholder engagement.

Generating ideas: Brainstorming