Abstract
In my paper, I concentrate on the so-called "dialogical turn" in social inquiry. I do not intend to enter the debates on transcendental or transcontextual structure of dialogue.
I want to argue that the "dialogical turn" in social sciences is first of all an attempt to retire from the game of approaches claiming to complete a "synthesis" of divergent orientations and perspectives in social inquiry with the ambition to arrive through dialogue at some non-dialogical end, at some "truth" transcending the context of concrete dialogue. In my argument, I address the specific character of the dialogue between social scientists and their audiences; expecially the limits, possibilities and presuppositions of the dialogue between social scientists and lay actors (put shortly, what constitutes, forms or restricts their mutual interest in dialogue).
I try to follow the argument that the problem solving activity of sociology as a science is basically constituted as a question of incompetence (either on the side of the researcher or the researched). The mutual interest in knowledge, explanation or understanding arises in practice as an answer to an identified probglem.
If social science is not albe to identify problems, it becomes irrelevant both to the public and to its own audience.