Introduction
Social dialogue, as an effective tool for strengthening social cohesion, plays a significant role in reducing conflicts and fostering mutual understanding in diverse societies. Relying on Habermas's theory, this study aims to examine and assess the concept of dialogue within both private and public spheres. An analysis of the country's cultural, political, and managerial context reveals that the lack of a dialogue-oriented culture at various levels has led to a decline in the effectiveness of participatory mechanisms. The main objective of this article is to design and validate a standardized questionnaire to measure adherence to the culture of social dialogue. The shortage of localized and reliable instruments in this field highlights the necessity of developing such a tool within a theoretical framework and through a quantitative methodology.
Materials & Methods
In order to design a standardized scale for measuring social dialogue, an initial questionnaire was reviewed and revised by sociology experts. The revised version was then randomly distributed among 30 participants. Based on the variance of the dependent variable, the initial sample size was estimated at 438. However, to increase statistical precision, reduce sampling error, and improve sample representativeness, the final sample size was increased to 510 participants. A stratified sampling method was used, in which the city of Ardabil was divided into three strata (upper, middle, and lower) based on socio-economic indicators, and then further subdivided into 13 sub-regions. Missing data were replaced using linear regression following an exploratory factor analysis.
In the theoretical section, the concepts of the private and public spheres in Habermas’s theory are identified as the two main dimensions of social dialogue. The private sphere, grounded in the concept of the "lifeworld," refers to intra-group and familial interactions where freedom of expression, respect for opposing views, and open exchange of ideas are emphasized. In contrast, the public sphere serves as a space for civic engagement, expressing individual viewpoints within institutions, monitoring governmental performance, and influencing policymaking. To assess these two dimensions, 22 items were developed—7 related to the private sphere and 15 to the public sphere.
Discussion & Result
In this study, after designing the items based on Habermas's theory regarding the public and private spheres of dialogue, the data collected through the questionnaire were analyzed using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The initial exploratory analysis was conducted using both Varimax and Oblimin rotations, which yielded similar results. Based on eigenvalues and factor loadings, three items (8, 9, and 10) that loaded onto an unrelated component and had lower factor loadings were removed.
Following the removal of these items, the cumulative variance explained increased, and the two-dimensional structure proposed by Habermas (public and private spheres of dialogue) became more distinct. The results of the initial confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the RMSEA fit index exceeded the recommended threshold; therefore, based on modification indices, two additional items (2 and 12) were excluded to achieve a more optimal model. The final model, consisting of 17 items, demonstrated an acceptable fit, and all items had T-values greater than 1.96, indicating their significant contribution to measuring their respective constructs.
Furthermore, the correlation between the public and private spheres of dialogue was positive and moderate in strength (0.29), indicating a reciprocal relationship between these two domains within the structure of social dialogue. The final analysis also revealed that the mean score for the private sphere of dialogue (3.9) was higher than that of the public sphere (2.6); in other words, free and effective interaction was of higher quality in private settings compared to public ones. This finding highlights the need to strengthen the foundations for public participation.

Conclusion
In this research, after designing and evaluating the items of the "Social Dialogue" variable based on Jürgen Habermas's theory of the public and private spheres, the data refinement process was carried out in several stages. In the first step, principal component analysis with various rotations was employed to examine the conceptual structure of the items, and inconsistent items (8, 9, and 10) were removed. Subsequently, missing data were managed using linear regression, and confirmatory factor analysis was performed. Based on the fit indices, the removal of two additional items (2 and 12) led to a significant improvement in the model. The final model consists of 17 items across two dimensions: the private sphere (6 items) and the public sphere (11 items), demonstrating a good fit. Additionally, a positive and significant correlation with moderate strength was observed between these two dimensions. Finally, the comparison of means indicated that social dialogue in the private sphere is in a more favorable condition compared to the public sphere.