Bohm Dialogue
Bohm Dialogue is a free-flowing group conversation with no set agenda and no decision to reach, in which participants try to notice and suspend their assumptions and reactions instead of defending them. The physicist David Bohm described it with Donald Factor and Peter Garrett in the 1991 paper "Dialogue: A Proposal". Its purpose is to let a group observe how its thinking works collectively and to let shared meaning emerge; the authors state plainly that it is not a technique for solving problems.
Facilitation script
- 1
Welcome the circle, agree the two-hour length and who will call time, and confirm there is no agenda and nothing to decide.
5 min - 2
Introduce the practice of suspension: noticing a reaction or assumption and holding it in view for yourself and the group instead of acting on it.
10 min - 3
Open the dialogue. Anyone may begin with whatever is on their mind; the conversation finds its own subject.
45 min - 4
Continue. Facilitators offer an occasional observation when the group is polarising, rushing to agree or drifting into small talk.
50 min - 5
Call time and close with a few moments of silence. Do not summarise.
5 min - 6
Agree when the group meets next.
5 min
Tips
Expect frustration in the early sessions: without an agenda, groups first try to find a task, then argue about what dialogue is.
Treat that as material for the dialogue and say so, since it shows the assumptions the group is working with.
Resist the urge to rescue silences or steer towards a tidy outcome.
If you are the convener, speak as a participant and limit yourself to brief observations about the process.
Common pitfalls
Promising the sponsor a result: when no decision appears, the method is written off and the group loses the time it needed
A facilitator who leads the conversation, which keeps the group dependent and prevents it from watching its own process
Understanding suspension as politeness or holding back, so reactions go underground and the conversation becomes flat
A few articulate members turning the circle into a philosophical debate while others withdraw
Running it once and judging it on that session, although the first meetings are typically the most awkward
Variations
The proposal reports groups of up to 60 seated in two concentric circles, but notes that this becomes unwieldy and puts the outer circle at a disadvantage. Weekends with several sessions in a row are a common way to start. Many organisations use a shortened form with 8 to 15 people and a guiding question; this borrows the practice of suspending assumptions but is closer to a facilitated conversation than to dialogue as Bohm described it, and should be named as such. Online it works with cameras on, gallery view and no chat.
Where it fits
When to use it
A group keeps having the same argument and suspects that unexamined assumptions are driving it
A leadership team or community wants to understand how it thinks together and is willing to meet regularly for that purpose
People are skilled at debate and advocacy and want to practise listening without answering back
There is no deadline attached and the sponsor accepts that the session will produce no decision or action list
Participation is voluntary and people know in advance what kind of conversation they are joining
When not to use it
A decision is needed by the end of the meeting: use Consent Decision-Making or another explicit decision method
The sponsor expects documented outputs or an action plan: a World Café or Open Space Technology will serve better
You have a single short slot with a group that will never meet again; the effect builds over repeated sessions
An acute conflict between named people needs repair: a Restorative Dialogue gives the structure and protection that an open circle does not
The group wants every voice heard in turn: Council Practice with a talking piece offers that guarantee, which Bohm Dialogue does not
Related methods
Frequently asked questions
What is Bohm Dialogue?▾
Bohm Dialogue is a form of group conversation proposed by the physicist David Bohm together with Donald Factor and Peter Garrett. A group of ideally 20 to 40 people sits in a circle and talks with no agenda, no leader and no decision to reach. Participants practise noticing and suspending their assumptions so the group can observe how its thinking works.
What does suspending assumptions mean?▾
It means noticing an opinion, judgement or emotional reaction as it comes up and holding it in view instead of either acting on it or pushing it away. You might voice it so the group can look at it, or simply observe it in yourself. The aim is to slow the move from thought to reaction enough to see what lies behind it.
Is Bohm Dialogue a problem-solving method?▾
No. The authors distinguish it from discussion and debate, which aim at agreement, a solution or winning a point. Bohm Dialogue has no task, and any practical benefit comes indirectly from a group understanding its own habits of thought. If you need a decision, use a decision method.
How many people and how much time does Bohm Dialogue need?▾
The original proposal recommends 20 to 40 people seated in one circle and sessions of about two hours, since longer sessions tire people. The group should meet regularly, with at least a week between sessions if it continues over a longer period. Smaller groups are common in organisations but lose some of the diversity of views the authors considered important.
Does Bohm Dialogue need a facilitator?▾
At the start, yes. The proposal calls for one or preferably two experienced facilitators who occasionally point out sticking points and help the group notice its own process. Their interventions are meant to be light, and the stated goal is for the facilitators to become unnecessary.
Plan your next workshop with AI
Workshop Weaver helps you combine methods like Bohm Dialogue into a complete, timed agenda in minutes.
Try it freeMethod descriptions on Workshop Weaver are original content written by our team, based on established facilitation practices. This method was inspired by work from David Bohm, Donald Factor and Peter Garrett, "Dialogue: A Proposal" (1991).