This article addresses three critical strategies in tackling the intricate challenges presented by hybrid warfare: fostering international cooperation, leveraging media engagement, and granting access to specialized expertise. When considering international cooperation, it’s imperative to underline the centrality of political decision-making and trust. Engaging in a shared exchange of information and strategic planning on an international level can bolster transparency and fortify trust among nations. Moreover, this cooperation could foster the development of universal standards and guidelines aimed at curbing the spread of disinformation. In turn, these guidelines would provide a roadmap for media outlets to ensure accurate reporting. The symbiosis between the media and expert knowledge forms another significant aspect of this approach. Media organizations should forge solid partnerships with professionals and experts harboring specialized knowledge. This collaboration can enhance the identification and verification of disinformation, ultimately resulting in more accurate reporting. Furthermore, working in conjunction with experts can boost the media’s credibility, promote media literacy, and augment their capacity to evaluate information objectively. In creating a comprehensive strategy to counter hybrid warfare, the integration of these three methods - international cooperation, media engagement, and access to expertise - becomes vital. In conclusion, to effectively address the multifaceted challenges posed by hybrid warfare, we need robust cooperation among governments, educational institutions, media organizations, and various stakeholders. Sound political decision-making and trust form the bedrock of this collaborative effort. Media organizations must prioritize transparency and accuracy in their reporting and actively engage with experts to validate the information. Furthermore, societal enhancement of media literacy and information evaluation skills are crucial. The diligent implementation of these measures can significantly mitigate the impact of hybrid warfare, paving the way for an informed and resilient society.

This paper presents an analysis of dialogues from a sociolinguistics perspective. Political science and public administration have empirically examined dialogues as a place for deliberation, focusing on the transformation of participants’ opinions and whether the opinions changed before/after dialogues. However, little research has been conducted on the transformation of participants’ linguistic behavior during dialogues, including what they said and the ways in which they said it. In this paper, two cases of dialogues in which observers at the actual discussion site perceived positive changes are considered with an analysis of the participants’ linguistic behaviors. The common transformations across the examples include (1) positive and constructive opinions in accordance with the theme of the discussion, (2) expression of opinions from a subjective yet legitimate standpoint as a participant in the discussion, and (3) presentation of opinions from the viewpoints of other non-participants. The result of the analysis corresponds to the aim of deliberate discussion.

For more than a quarter of a century, the author has conducted research from the standpoint of public administration, local government, and public policy on community development workshops, in which citizens discuss community development and regional issues. Meanwhile, the author has discovered the possibility that "dialogue" in community development workshops may cause some kind of "phase transition" among the citizens who participate in them. Based on the above recognition of the problem, this paper will present a research design to empirically elucidate what kind of phase transitions are brought about among participants through dialogue and what kind of mechanisms cause such transitions, targeting community development workshops organized by local governments.