Written submissions are traditionally used in the assessment of applications for Fellowship of the Higher Education Academy, with dialogue offering an alternative approach. Quite why individuals elect for dialogue has received little attention. Using a mixed methods approach, data were gathered from two Universities offering dialogic and written routes in their Fellowship schemes. Most individuals elected for dialogue, although this decision varied between Fellowship categories. Reasons for the choice were highly individual. This study demonstrates that dialogic approaches are popular with staff. However, we argue the importance of choice in Fellowship assessment options and recommend this to other academic developers.