The fourth stage of the dialogue occurred in the latter part of the research process. New situations constantly arose in our practice related to the subject of the guiding principle. During our meetings, each of us presented vignettes from our cases, which appeared to support or raise doubt in the generalised applicability of the guiding principle. We explored these cases through critical reflection of the outcomes of our interventions, in order to re-examine the operant significance of the guiding principle. The dialogue between us led to the extraction and synthesis of a number of revised and refined guiding principles which formed our a shared working model of the RO approach to psychotherapeutic practice. The dialogue also inspired the construction of the diagrams and flow charts in the Appendix which illustrate the basic framework of my RO approach.  The complete extensive dialogic training process also provided Anat with a capability for the meta-observation and conceptualisation of cases, essential for the new practitioner, which is an essential component of our RO training model for practice.
During the fourth stage of the research process, each of us conceptualised and crystalised our personal practice approach. Despite our agreement on most of the guiding principles, and the therapeutic goal, we frequently disagreed as to the best approach to achieve this goal. During the research process, we realised that this difference evolved not only due to our different personalities, but due to our different epistemic positions, or the way we view reality and regard knowledge.  This understanding of the difference between us, lead us to consider our individual stances in this regard in both our practice and research and later in the process, we conducted another dialogue concerning ontology and epistemology. Within this discussion, it became evident that each of us had different epistemic stances, which affected the whole research process whose focus was on practical knowledge extraction and transfer. The process was dialogic because the knowledge had to be transferred from a person with one worldview to a person with another worldview. The knowledge was transferred to the trainee when she understood it, but she utilised it in a different way in her practice or was perhaps only inspired by it. The training process could not be monologic, like in traditional teaching where the knowledge is communicated to the student, who mimics the teacher's utilization of it. Furthermore, some significant practical findings concerning personal epistemology evolved from this discussion.
I include in this dissertation another discussion which occurred between us later in the research process.  As we discussed children’s learning and development space, following one of my vignettes, the dialogue continued with a discussion concerning our learning space. This dialogue focused upon our reflections on the knowledge extraction and transfer process and produced understandings which evolved from it regarding our model for practical knowledge extraction and transfer, which will contribute to our training programs.