ed. John Stewart, 6th edition, (New York: McGraw- Hill, 1995), pp. 184-201.
Summary by Tanya Glaser.
Copyright ©1997 by the Conflict Research Consortium
Active or empathic listening stresses putting one's self in another's place. The goal is to effectively understand and accurately interpret another's meanings. The authors identify three problems with this sort of approach.
First, we cannot actually get inside another's mind or occupy their perspective. Nor can we actually set aside our own perspective. Second, paraphrasing under this approach can become a mere parroting back of the other's words, which tends to frustrate the other person. Third, these approaches focus each participant's attention on the other's internal psychological state, rather than focusing on the joint process and interaction of communication.
The authors contrast dialogic listening to active or empathic approaches. The dialogic approach has four distinctive characteristics. First, it emphasizes conversation as a shared activity. Usually people focus their attention on their own views in conversation. Active listening overcompensates for this tendency by overemphasizing the need to focus attention on the other's views. In contrast, in dialogic listening the focus is on "our" views and the emerging product of the conversation.
Second, dialogic listening stresses an open-ended, playful attitude toward conversation. The authors note that modern Western culture values "hard" thinking which produces certainty, closure, and control. Speculative, metaphoric, ambiguous thinking is generally devalued. Dialogic listening seeks to recover and tap into the productive creativity of this "softer" style of thinking. In contrast to the "hard" style of most conversations, the "soft" style of dialogic listening requires modesty, humility, trust, and a robust recognition of the other party as a choice-maker.
Third, in dialogic listening, the parties focus on what is happening between them, rather than each party focusing on what is going on within the mind of the other. Stewart and Thomas say, "instead of trying to infer internal 'psychic' states from the talk, when you are listening dialogically you join with the other person in the process of co-creating meaning between you."[p. 192]
Finally, dialogic listening focuses on the present (what we are doing now), rather than primarily on future goals (what we will do), or on past events (what we did then). Dialogic listening requires that one be fully present to the process and one's conversation partner. This attitude of being-in-the-present helps each party to unify his or her actions, intentions, and speech. It can also ameliorate power differences.
The most important element in applying dialogic listening is the participant's attitude. The dialogic listener must stay focused on staying present, and on the open-ended process they are jointly creating. Dialogic listening occurs when these attitudes are coupled with the following techniques:
Stewart and Thomas conclude by responding to common objections to their dialogic approach. One objection is that dialogic listening is too time consuming. The authors point out that this approach can be pursued in only half-again the time that poorer communication takes. Moreover, dialogic listening can lead to more efficient communication in future interactions. Many people find that the increased quality in communication balances the additional time costs.
Dialogic listening can seem awkward and possibly manipulative to those who are unfamiliar with the approach. If you encounter this resistance, the authors suggest first that you re-examine you own motivations to make sure you aren't being manipulative or insincere. Otherwise, people can usually be put at ease with some brief explanation of your non-standard behavior.
Finally, dialogic listening is very demanding. It requires a lot of effort and attention. Sometimes people will resist these demands. One may encourage others to participate in the dialogic approach, but must know when to stop pushing.