Interfaith and intercultural dialogue has emerged as an important policy tool in many European countries. Policy-makers have attempted to make use of dialogue as a way of increasing social cohesion. But in spite of the prevalence of such initiatives, there have been few empirical investigations of these policies.

This study looks into when dialogue acitivities can have an effect, and when they can backfire. The main claim is that dialogue can indeed lead to a deeper change than other forms of interaction. Dialogue allows participants to change their thinking, without this being felt as a threat to one's self-image or autonomy. But if dialogue becomes too instrumentalized as a policy tool the participants may feel that the dialogue is done with the aim of controlling them, and the dialogue will no longer work. This is the dialogue paradox.

These claims are tested by looking at the Norwegian case, and the dialogue between The Islamic Council of Norway and other actors in society. The Islamic Council of Norway is the main representative umbrella organization for mosques in Norway, and has been involved in dialogue activities since the early 1990s. It has also been involved in controversies, where it was asked by outside actors to take stands on contested issues. Using within-case comparison, I show that dialogue often made the Islamic Council change their stances, whereas debate from the outside did not achieve this. But in the latest period, dialogue became perceived as a governing tool, and therefore stopped having an effect.