**3. The micro-, meso- and macro-level study of CSSPs as dialogue**

Our analytical framework is rooted in dialogue analysis. Thus, we analyze the meetings in the CSSP as dialogue, focusing on how social change is constructed in dialogic meeting talk. Our framework is outlined in Section 4 below.

We argue that dialogue is both a *formal structure of discourse* [50–53] and a *discursive practice*, i.e. an approach to language analysis which concerns itself with issues of language, power and ideology. A discursive practice in foucauldian terms [54] is the process through which [dominant] reality comes into being. Thus, dialogue is not only a tool for managing interaction with a specific goal, but also a concrete communicative practice that relies on language. We extract fundamental notions from different disciplines and areas that we find relevant in the analysis of dialogue as a tool in partnership-wide meetings for change.

As one of the fundamentals of communication as a formal structure, conversation analysts [53] introduced the concept of *turn taking*, a turn defined as any participatory act committed by the respective discourse partners. The interaction rests on specific rules for turn taking which respect the rules of politeness of the specific culture in which we speak; certain openings are inevitably followed by certain responses, the so-called *adjacency pairs*. A question and an answer constitute such an adjacency pair, just as does a request and an acceptance, a greeting and a greeting response. If one of these openings is not followed by the expected response, this is understood as a violation of the politeness pattern, which underlies all verbal interaction. A question and an answer consist of such an adjacency pair given that the construction is held together by the expectation of an answer. Added to this is

#### *How to Do CSR with Dialogic Meeting Talk: A Conceptual Framework for Managing Change… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94345*

the fact that some types of answers are *preferred*. Conversation analysts have also made the observation that an opening and a closing surround almost all interactions. According to [50], politeness can be derived from fundamental anthropological notions of what it is to be a human being. The basic notion of their model is that of *face*, defined as the public self-image that every member [of society] wants to claim for himself, which is divided into negative face – or freedom of action and the wish that one's actions will not be constrained by others – and positive face, the positive self-image that people have and their desire to be appreciated and approved of by at least some other people. *Face Threatening Acts [FTAs*] are acts that infringe on the hearers' need to maintain their self-esteem and be respected. Politeness strategies are developed for the main purpose of dealing with these FTAs, and speakers use these strategies for lessening the threat. Questions and requests can be more threatening than other acts or be put forward in a relation of power, which underlines the threat. Questions, requests and other threatening acts are therefore often prepared and explained before and after, so that the face of the interlocutor is protected. Any speech act may impose on this sense and therefore paves the way for preparatory acts.

Conversations with a clear purpose, such as for example conversations conducted in an organizational and/or partnership context, have another common feature: a logical structure. The Geneva School [52], drawing on works by Bakhtine, Austin, Searle and Grice, and Goffman, among others, understands *dialogue as a hierarchical or logical construction*. According to this school, dialogue consists of units at different levels [for example, a superior versus a subordinate exchange], which are tied together in different ways. In practice, it can be difficult to delimit the units. However, one possibility is to consider a meeting between two or more persons in a certain place and in a certain space of time as a unit [51, p. 214]. Furthermore, a unit can be defined by its topic, as topic shifts can mark the transition to a new unit. The starting point of the model is a conception of dialogue as negotiation. This means that a dialogue is not closed before the partners have reached an agreement, including agreeing that it is not possible to reach an agreement. This also means that a turn is not complete until it is so clearly formulated and motivated that the recipient is capable of answering. According to models of dialogue analysis, a good dialogue is characterized by the fact that the partners know their rights and duties. They have a right to speak and they have a right to expect something from their dialogue partner. For example, they can expect an answer to a question. At the same time, they have duties, such as listening to their dialogue partner.

We will now outline our analytical framework.
