Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Public Relations Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pubrev Ifit’ssogood,whynotmakethemdoit?Whytruedialoguecannot be mandated Anne B. Lane Queensland University of Technology, 2 George Street, Brisbane, Queensland 4000, Australia ARTICLEINFO Keywords: True dialogue Two-way communication Non-dialogue Legislation Mandated Barriers ABSTRACT True dialogue—as opposed to two-way communication—is a very specifc and inescapably principled form of communication with benefts for all participants. This paper asks whether, given its highly-desirable form and function, governments could use legislation to require or- ganizations to conduct true dialogue. An analysis of practitioner insights, however, shows the natureoftherelationshipbetweenorganisationsandtheirstakeholders,andtheirperspectiveson each other and the communication between them, preclude the conduct of true dialogue. The empirical data from this study allow the identifcation and articulation of these barriers to dia- logue, moving the feld of dialogue studies in public relations on from the assertion that true dialogue is hard to fnd in practice. This research allows practitioners and scholars alike to say why truedialoguedoesnothappen.Becauseofthis,itispossibletostartdevelopingstrategiesfor dealing with—and perhaps overcoming—the barriers. 1. Introduction Dialogue has long been positionedin the literature as an ideal form of communication, distinguished by two-way communication based on inclusiveness and respect between participants, resulting in ethically sound decisions (see, for example, Anderson, Baxter, & Cissna,2004; Pearson, 1989a).However,researchhasalsoshownthattheconductofdialogueisdifcult(Lane&Bartlett,2016),and many examples of so-called dialogue in the literature do not feature communication with its distinguishing characteristics (Kent, 2017). Drawing a distinction between what has been called ‘true’, ‘genuine’, or ‘authentic’ dialogue (described by Buber, 2002; Freire & da Veiga Coutinho, 1972; Theunissen & Wan Noordin, 2012, among others) and other forms of two-way communication is nothing new. The conduct of communication that is either misunderstood, or masquerading, as dialogue has also been noted by Heath et al. (2006), Kent and Theunissen (2016), and Paquette, Sommerfeldt, and Kent (2015) among others. These scholars note the tendency for researchers and practitioners to label any form of two-way communication as dialogue. Applying the label (and, by implication, the virtues) of dialogue to two-way communication that does not demonstrate its distinguishing characteristics—what Kent and Theunissen (2016) call dialogue in name only, or D-I-N-O—is problematic for both the theory and practice of dialogue. Put simply, hijackingdialogueinthiswaymeansitisnotbeingproperlyimplementedinpractice(Lane&Bartlett,2016).Asaresult,participants are not actually being given the chance to experience its benefts, and dialogue’s claim to superiority as a form of communication is weakened. Might the misappropriation or co-opting of the term ‘dialogue’ by other (arguably inferior) forms of two-way communication be prevented—at least in some contexts—through the introduction of government policies that mandate the conduct of true dialogue? If there is consensus that true dialogue is better than D-I-N-O, perhaps governments could mandate its conduct by organizations? https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.10.001 Received 14 February 2018; Received in revised form 4 October 2018; Accepted 5 October 2018 E-mail address: a.lane@qut.edu.au. Public Relations Review 44 (2018) 656–666 Available online 24 October 2018 0363-8111/ © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. T