Introduction to the special issue on generalisation from dialogical single case studies

Abstract

Drawing on historical, theoretical and cultural knowledge, this introduction explains and justifies the importance of generalisation from dialogical single case studies. We clarify the meaning of dialogism and dialogicality, differentiate between single case studies and dialogical single case studies, identify the dynamic and ethical features of dialogical single case studies, and articulate the problem of generalisation as it pertains to this topic. We suggest that the question of generalisation ought to be viewed as an effort to resituate knowledge and its dialogical features, for example values, ethical standards or levels of engagement, in other dialogical single case studies. Dialogism and dialogicalityThroughout historical and cultural development, language and symbolic communication have been vital for humans' evolving capacities to conceive themselves and others as beings who can think, who have knowledge and beliefs, who experience, use symbols, tell stories, and otherwise. Individuals, groups and societies create intersubjective bonds, struggle for their social recognition, and evaluate and judge their intentions and actions. These capacities not only privilege speech and symbolic communication as vital, but they also have ethical qualities. Although these capacities have been concerns of humankind throughout history, with the emergence of the social sciences in the 18th century, they became the subject of explicit research. Among scholars, Giambattista Vico (1668-1744) emphasised the inventive power of language and the ethical nature of common sense thinking. Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744-1801) viewed language through the power of self-consciousness and self-realisation. Wilhelm Humboldt (1767-1835) conceived of language as an organic whole, which is never a finished product but an everchanging and dynamic process. We could view such scholars as predecessors of the concepts of 'dialogical existence' and 'dialogical thinking', which were later developed in the post-Hegelian Marburg School, Bakhtin's dialogism, Vygotsky's sociocultural approach, and American pragmatism. These theoretical influences led, during the second half of the last century, to the development of a number of approaches in which dialogue has become the central concept and thus, such approaches often call themselves 'dialogical'. At the same time, the emphasis on dialogue, in which professionals and clients/patients mutually co-construct meanings of their concerns, has become influential in professional practices such as psychotherapy, family therapy, and the care of people with communication difficulties. Moreover, the focus on mutualities in dialogue has penetrated other domains of social interactions, for example in education, services and politics.The main presupposition of dialogical perspectives is that the mind of the Self and the minds of Others are interdependent in and through the sense-making and sense-creating of social realities, in interpretations of the past, experiencing the present and imagining the future. Some d...

Communicative generalisation: Dialogical means of advancing knowledge through a case study of an ‘unprecedented’ disaster

“…The main presupposition of dialogical perspectives is that the mind of the Self and the minds of Others are interdependent in and through the sense-making and sensecreating of social realities, in interpretations of the past, experiencing the present and imagining the future. (Markova´, Zadeh, & Zittoun, 2020) The interdependence of the minds of authors and readers is at the heart of what I want to propose as dialogical (communicative) means of generalising from case studies. If knowledge is intersubjective, the way it generalises is through the minds of others, not through reflecting an abstract universal truth.…”

“…One of those challenges may be to do with generalisation. Dialogue implies respecting the unique particularity of dialogue partners (Markova´, Zadeh & Zittoun, 2020), some of whom may be a part of, or representative of, the case under consideration. Treating the case as an instance of something more general tends to objectify it, to misrecognise its particularity.…”

“…But the awareness of potential multiple audiences can be a stimulus for careful and accountable thinking. And following the ethical commitment of dialogicality to recognising the uniqueness and humanity of the other (Markova´, Zadeh, & Zittoun, 2020), I would argue that all too often we continue to speak of human subjects as objects and that it would improve our work to consider people we write about as our dialogue partners, audiences for our analyses. Doing so would be a technique for making our research less objectifying and othering, and a technique for addressing multiple audiences simultaneously, with the possibility of resituating knowledge for multiple dialogue partners.…”

Towards a dialogical methodology for single case studies

“…In this Special Issue, we have started from a dialogical set of assumptions to consider how single case studies build knowledge that has value beyond the immediate setting of their production. We came to question whether 'generalising' is a helpful term, given its origin in a statistical language that privileges abstraction from the particularity of people in contexts (Markova´, Zadeh, & Zittoun, 2020). It is difficult to make the term mean something other than abstracting.…”

Dialogical exemplars as communicative tools: Resituating knowledge from dialogical single case studies

“…In intellectual contributions about the methodological and analytical approaches that are consistent with dialogical epistemology (see, e.g. Aveling, Gillespie, & Cornish, 2015;Gillespie & Cornish, 2014;Gillespie, Cornish, Aveling, & Zittoun, 2008;Markova´, Linell, Grossen, & Salazar Orvig, 2007;Zittoun, 2014), scholars have advocated for single case studies that involve ethical and dynamic self-other(s) interdependencies (Markova´, 2016;Markova´, Zadeh, & Zittoun, 2020). As a longstanding approach to qualitative research, the case study method has not been without its critics, and debates about the generalisability of such research are now routine (Flyvbjerg, 2006;Forrester, 1996;Salvatore & Valsiner, 2010).…”