Table of Contents
In our search for case studies, we found only one description of a failure. This was in a situation in which researchers used the nominal group technique to try to change land managers’ attitudes and values (Padgett and Imani 1999). Specifically, they aimed to move land managers to a position from which they would be more accepting of US Government policies on environmental justice. The nominal group process, however, had the opposite effect, moving them to an even more conservative position than the one they held before the group experience. As the authors explain, the most likely reason is that the participants did not want to be there at all and therefore rejected the dialogue process.
This highlights an issue that we have not raised so far—namely, that dialogue methods rely on the willing participation of all involved. This is an unstated assumption behind all of the methods we describe in this book. This also points to a weakness of dialogue as a research integration process: if some key disciplinary or stakeholder groups, or sections of a particular group, do not want to be involved, the dialogue process becomes skewed and its usefulness can be limited.
The publication of such negative findings, critical analysis of individual methods and comparisons between methods are all essential for determining the full potential and limitations of the use of dialogue methods in research integration.