Development problems are often considered as complex, so-called ‘wicked problems’, that have no single right way to solution and in which many stake-holders are involved, framing the issues from their preferred perspectives. Thus, Servaes (2016, 708) suggests, that solutions to these problems should be settled together in multi-stakeholder platforms in the communication for development and social change practices.
In a study evaluating effectiveness of partnership networks in transna-tional context, Bäckstrand (2006, 291) suggests that multi-stakeholder partnerships that aim for sustainable development can be understood as a new form of global governance with a possibility to link multilateral norms and local action together, by including multiple actors from civil society, government and business. These multi-stakeholder networks perpetuate the concept of “govern-ance from below” and promote a participatory approach in their nature. The thought is that more participation by affected groups will result in more suc-cessful collective problem solving, which is conducted through “deliberative mechanisms for enhancing stakeholder consultation.” (Bäckstrand 2006, 291-295.)
The nature of these networks is voluntary and they are intended often for implementation and common problem solving (Bäckstrand 2006, 293). Accord-ing to Bäckstrand (2006, 304) the most usual leaders in these multi-stakeholder partnerships are multilateral organizations such as the United Nations agencies in consort with some governments. Although the partnerships may have an organization in lead, their participatory nature entails that balanced representa-tion of different stakeholders and arena for discussion between the different actors remains (Bäckstrand 2006, 294). Institutionalization of these partnerships, meaning their clear linkages to global goals and targets in multilateral agree-ments, profits their effectiveness by giving measurable targets and a framework for the partnerships (Bäckstrand 2006, 301 & 303).
Issues are in the main focus in these collaborative activities of multi-stakeholder networks. In a study on issue-focused multi-stakeholder management, Roloff (2008, 234) stresses, that the purpose of the different actors coming
to-gether is to seek a common approach to an issue affecting them all and that is often too complicated to be solved without collaboration. The common ap-proach in the multi-stakeholder network is achieved by communicative action of exchange of arguments (Roloff 2008, 245). Similarly, Aakhus and Bzdak (2015, 189) state that issues and shared problems are in the centre of “value-creating networks” where value is created by jointly solving a common problem. The problem solving actions involve multi-stakeholder engagement efforts, which should be based on dialogue, to create evidence-based solutions to the issues and shared learnings about the problems. When shifting from consultation and information sharing to a shared responsibility between the stakeholders, rela-tionships are built and trust improved. (Aakhus & Bzdak 2015, 195-196.)
Concerning gender equality improvement through advocacy with differ-ent African governmdiffer-ents, Theobald et al. (2005, 147) came to the conclusion that dialogue is critical to build alliances for the issues advancement. In this context, dialogue was seen as helping to raise awareness of the institutional, personal and political experiences that construct different actors’ understanding of the advocated gender issues. (Theobald et al. 2005, 147.) This indicates that the communicative actions in multi-stakeholder networks could involve dialogic elements. The concept of dialogue is often quite ambiguous and confusion over its meaning remains in the public relations literature (Lane 2020, 3). In her study, Lane (2020, 5) proposed a conceptualization of dialogue to clarify distinctions between the different definitions, where the concept of “true dialogue” is seen as the most progressive form of dialogue constituting all dialogic characteristics from two-way communication finally to true dialogue.
The concept of true dialogue draws on five pillars presented by Taylor and Kent (2002, 24-25), where dialogue is based on mutuality, propinquity, em-pathy, risk, and commitment. In these orientations to dialogue, mutuality can be seen as the acknowledgment of relationships between the organization and the public, where participants should be viewed as true persons instead of ob-jects and there should be a feeling of mutual equality between actors. Propin-quity refers to communication actions that involve persons in matters that con-cern them, who are also willing to communicate their needs to the organiza-tions. (Taylor & Kent 2002, 25-26.) This orientation requires engagement where participants are reachable, respect their discussion partners and pursue fond-ness, leading to more extensive viewpoints to draw the decisions on as well as benefits equally all involved parties. (Taylor & Kent 2002, 26.)
In the empathic principle of dialogue, empathy is expressed through sup-portiveness and common orientation such as positive reactions to other’s inputs (Taylor & Kent 2002, 27). Risk in dialogue means that the participants allow themselves to be exposed to vulnerability caused from sharing confidential in-formation and personal desires, unexpected outcomes may occur due to spon-taneous interaction of individual beliefs and attitudes as well as recognition of otherness where participants bring their differences to the dialogue (Taylor &
Kent 2002, 28-29). These above-mentioned four pillars of dialogue create the base for the final dialogic principle, which is commitment. Dialogic
commit-ment emphasizes, that dialogue should be rather seen as process where all par-ties attempt to understand and value the interests of the others, than as an agreement. The process is usually guided towards finding common under-standings. When the participants are committed to dialogue, they are willing to continue the conversation with an aim to understand each other and reach satis-fying outcomes for all involved parties. (Taylor & Kent 2002, 29-30.)
Later research on dialogue has further supported these dialogic principles constructing the “true dialogue”. For instance, Lane (2018, 657) concluded that the prevailing thought of dialogue in public relations is indicated by the partic-ipants common positive orientation at one another, where dialogue happens when the players are willing to communicate honestly, hoping that interactions will lead to mutually beneficial and acceptable outcomes. Similarly, Theunissen and Wan Noordin (2011, 10) stress that dialogue calls for engaging with the par-ticipating actors as human beings and not just as interest groups and focusing on listening, speaking and establishing situations that urge the participants to speak without control. There should be commitment to the process. Davidson (2016, 150) reminds that sometimes the dialogue participants use might include only one or a few of the true dialogic principles, which might end up making the dialogue weak to its meaning.
Additionally, the concept of engagement can also be tied into dialogue.
Taylor and Kent (2014, 384) present that when engagement is part of the dia-logue, organizations and publics can make decisions that produce social capital and engagement influences the communicative actions as well as operates as an approach guiding the process of interactions among different participants. This process of dialogic engagement entails that dialogue should be in the center of stakeholder engagement, and every dialogic intervention involves elements of conversational engagement such as being present, interaction happening at the same time, respect towards the participants and focus on the dialogue. (Taylor
& Kent 2014, 389.)
When the communicative actions follow dialogic principles, the partici-pants must be willing to be changed by the encounters despite their organiza-tion’s interests. In such situations, dialogic engagement encourages understand-ing and mutual views of reality. In engagement, also interaction outside of the deliberated issue is required, in order to establish relationships between stake-holders. (Taylor & Kent 2014, 390-391.) On a similar note, Roloff (2008, 246) studied that in issue-focused stakeholder management, interactions with the different stakeholders tend to happen on a more interpersonal level, due to more time-consuming communication processes requiring repetitive meetings and thus, ending up in the development of interpersonal relationships.
Roloff (2008, 238) studied the process of dialogue in the multi-stakeholder networks dividing it into different life-cycle phases. He reminded that these networks are often initiated by respectable actors like a politician or an organi-zation. In the first initiation phase, different participants discuss the problem until the next deliberation phase. After deliberation, participants discuss their views on the issue in order to understand its complexity and other
stakehold-er’s positions on the issue, which comprise the phases of acquaintance and agreements. (Roloff 2008, 239.) In order to implement the desired issue, estab-lishing a common language and open communication should be the base for the cooperation. Therefore, the phases of agreement are aimed to agree upon com-mon description of the issue, to compare approaches and finally, to select the best for implementation. (Roloff 2008, 239-241.)