Dialogue in Pursuit of Development - Are you looking for one of ...

204
By itself, this proactive stance is still insufficient to ensure collaborative
work with a recipient. A practitioner who seeks to induce a recipient to
behave in a certain way can demonstrate an intention by listening to the
recipient. But if it is to result in change, this intention must be backed up by
commitment to change, which is the next challenge for a practitioner. As
my case suggests, this commitment does not necessarily require a strong will
on the part of the practitioner: when a practitioner announces his decision
to others, he puts himself in a position that intensifies his sense of responsibility
for translating the decision into action.
Recipients, who know that practitioners are sometimes better at saying
than at doing, want to see tangible action rather than facile decisions. Only
when the decision materializes as actual practice does the recipient come to
know that the decision maker is truly listening to the recipient’s message.
That is when both sides feel that they are engaged in dialogue.
Valuing day-to-day practices
While dialogue requires a commitment to translate a decision into action,
that commitment does not remain abstract. It takes concrete forms in dayto-day
work. Commitment to host the forum, for example, required convincing
FASID’s administration as well as study group members. The actual
practice of convincing is again not abstract and may involve a number of
activities. In this case, those activities included holding a meeting to share
the idea of the forum with the study group members, preparing justifiable
reasons to legitimate the change, talking with the executive director to sound
out his feelings and understanding about hosting the forum, re-scheduling
the project to accommodate the change, and so forth.
All of these activities are concrete forms of commitment that embody
the reflective part of dialogue. The activities, however, do not guarantee any
particular outcome — hard work can turn out to have been in vain if it fails
to turn a decision made into a promise kept. The donor side can be upset
about a suggestion to make a sudden change and may decline to approve it.
Once this happens, the practitioner may lose the trust of the donor. Moreover,
the practitioner may even lose the trust of the recipient due to failure
to keep a promise.
Of course, a practitioner must understand the donor’s concerns and faithfully
present a reasonable plan in a convincing manner. The practitioner
should also keep the recipient informed about ongoing situations and the
practitioner’s efforts. Yet, in the worst case, the practitioner must accept a
donor’s negative response, which can result in losing the recipient’s trust. A
practitioner who commits to mediating two conflicting parties inevitably
ends up in a vulnerable position. Practitioners facilitate dialogue in day-today,
concrete yet risky actions, which should be a valued aspect of development.