In a recent piece in this journal Jørgensen and Valbjørn (2012) develop a typology of intellectual dialogue across fields that yields rather negative conclusions about the prospects for sustainable dialogue between 'European studies' and the 'new regionalism'. This response explains why we dispute this pessimistic conclusion. First, we argue that while their derivation of models of dialogue is impressive, it is nonetheless incomplete. Using Jørgensen and Valbjørn's premises, we derive a 'market' mode of dialogue that represents a challenge to their assumption that dialogue will tend towards hierarchy. Second, we accept that there are important 'sociology of knowledge' impediments to effective dialogue within political science and International Relations, but maintain that Jørgensen and Valbjørn fail to work through the question of 'dialogue between whom?' We argue that methodological division is the most significant impediment to dialogue, but maintain that withinmethodology dialogue is more than viable in the case under scrutiny in this debate. Third, having established these general parameters of disagreement, we move to a number of more particular criticisms of the assumptions made by Jørgensen and Valbjørn about our own calls for dialogue between scholars in these two fields.