Dialogue

A few things have come together to give some consideration to dialogue. But definition it is two or more people talking openly together, discussing ideas and seeking solutions. It is not one giving a monologue to the other, or each giving monologues to each other, in which minds are fixed and unchangeable. Dialogue consists of conversation partners who are happy to share and find answers together. Put one way, the topic of dialogue is something unresolved, with conversation partners wishing to compare and develop what the 'know' and think.
A long history in inter-faith dialogue throws up some questions. There are points that are not open, as the beliefs of each are not unresolved. The so-called dialogue is actually monologue, with each giving their point of view or belief system for the other to appreciate. True dialogue seeks new resolutions, insights and works to constructing new 'knowledge' (that is, shared understandings of the aspect being discussed). Dialogue therefore carries unacceptable dangers and challenges to what I will call the decided, committed and closed  minded [I do not regard these as synonyms] who are unlikely to want their paradigm to shift.
In philosophical terms, dialogue describes the form of writing in which two or more characters ask questions and seek answers, the written dialogue allowing multiple voices and arguments being put, weighed and emended. Socratic questioning is a case in point. This is a process of constantly revising what we think we know and subject it to rational discussion and verification.
Dialogue emphasises external challenges to our ideas and assumptions. We also do this by reading so long as we internalise and test what we read and are prepared to be changed by it. Fiction and theatre are as important as these explore emotions and assumptions in vivid and accessible ways.
Is thinking an inner dialogue? In a way we way up pros and cons and 'talk to ourselves', but although we can challenge ourselves by cues such as "How do you know? Prove it! Suppose the opposite is true", it is not like having to respond to a real person. It is a pale imitation, and the term dialogue might not be appropriate. The inner conversation could be externalised by taking a leaf from both fiction and philosophy. If the issue for exploration is the subject of a story in which characters debate prose and cons, and the writer honestly lets the dialogue go where it wills and does not lead it in a pre-decided direction, this may be potentially mind changing for the writer, and by extension for future readers.
For educational research, the sort of dialogue in which many voices declare their interest and point of view, and a win-win solution is sort, then the result is more likely to be helpful than if this is not the case. Such a win-win conclusion is not a compromise, which is a win some lose some ending. Nor is it consensus, which is either a majority decision (with a disappointed minority), or an acceptance of the views of those who should loudest and longest, or a watered down lowest common denominator that everyone can accept. It is a different way of thinking, rejecting competitiveness and assertiveness to seek social and personal justice. Everyone is concerned about everyone else getting as much as possible from the deal which can itself expand and improve through this process. Win-win may however be seen as a defeat by the opinionated and dogmatic, including and maybe especially politicians.