Intergroup dialogue

Last updated

Intergroup dialogue is a "face-to-face facilitated conversation between members of two or more social identity groups that strives to create new levels of understanding, relating, and action". [1] This process promotes conversation around controversial issues, specifically, in order to generate new "collective visions" that uphold the dignity of all people. [1] Intergroup dialogue is based in the philosophies of the democratic and popular education movements. It is commonly used on college campuses, but may assume different namesakes in other settings.

Contents

History

Intergroup dialogue is rooted in "philosophical and cultural traditions that have valued dialogue as a method of communication and inquiry" to explore shared issues. [2] :306–327 These traditions heavily influenced 20th century movements for democratic education, which included intergroup dialogue as a core objective. The application of dialogue in education was a core tenet of the democratic education movement, drawing on the work of public intellectuals like John Dewey who in the first decades of the 20th century envisioned "schools as social centers" that "educate youth for democratic citizenship". [3] Dewey and other advocates of democratic education at the time envisioned dialogue as "the practice of deliberative democracy". [4]

In 1932, Myles Horton, a popular-education thinker, co-founded the Highlander Research and Education Center—one of the earliest U.S. mainstream examples of a community center that offered dialogue, "popular education and literacy ... as a means of promoting civic participation and social action organizing". [5]

Later, the intergroup education movement in the 1940s and 1950s built upon Gordon Allport's intergroup contact theory. [6] :6 This movement was a response in part to 20th-century U.S. political turmoil and social changes. The Great Migration, which was the rapid internal movement of African Americans from the rural South to the industrial North, contributed to considerable social unrest within the United States. [6] :6 Similar effects were felt in the Southwest with the mass migration of Mexican Americans following World War II. [6] :6

In Brazil in the 1960s, Paulo Freire, who would become a core figure in popular education, adopted a theoretical approach to intergroup dialogue that emphasized the importance of people's own experiences, and the need to build dialogue capacity to enable people to "analyze their situation and take action to transform themselves and their conditions". [5] Freire's writings about "dialogue as a liberatory educational practice", [6] :6 such as his book Pedagogy of the Oppressed , influenced many educators throughout the Western Hemisphere to emphasize critical consciousness of social inequalities through "antibias, antiracist, multicultural, or social justice education". [6] :7

All of these ideas and practices, combined with those of thinkers such as John Paul Lederach and Harold H. Saunders about conflict transformation and peacebuilding, have formed the foundation for intergroup dialogue. [6] :6–7 The growing popularity of intergroup dialogue programs on college campuses coincided with other theoretical developments in higher education, including, for instance, the integration of critical race theory into law and other fields. [7] :5

Method

Goals

Intergroup dialogue is intended to build relationships amongst participants with different social identities through the use of personal storytelling, empathetic listening and interpersonal inquiry. [8] It integrates three core educational goals: "consciousness raising, building relationships across differences and conflicts, and strengthening individual and collective capacities to promote social justice". [6] :9 Intergroup dialogue distinguishes its approach from other dialogic methods such as debate and discussion: [7] :112–114

Characteristics

The following table contrasts the characteristics of debate, discussion, and dialogue:[ citation needed ]

In debate we...In discussion we try to..In dialogue we...
  • Succeed or win
  • Defend our opinion
  • Stress disagreement
  • Deny other's feelings
  • Discount the validity of feelings
  • Listen with a view of countering
  • Judge other viewpoints as inferior, invalid or distorted
  • Use silence to gain an advantage
  • Disregard relationships
  • Present ideas
  • Enlist others
  • Persuade others
  • Acknowledge feelings, then discount them as inappropriate
  • Listen for places of disagreement
  • Achieve preset goals
  • Avoid silence
  • Retain relationships
  • Broaden our own perspective
  • Express paradox and ambiguity
  • Find places of agreement
  • Explore thoughts and feelings
  • Listen with a view to understand
  • Challenge ourselves and other's preconceived notions
  • Honor silence
  • Build relationships
  • Ask questions and invite inquiry

Multi-partiality

Intergroup dialogue draws the work of Paulo Freire whose work focuses on consciousness raising, a process through which members of an oppressed group come to understand the history and circumstances of their oppression. [6] :9 Intergroup dialogue further aims to raise the consciousness of all participants, including those from advantaged and disadvantaged groups, through the use of multi-partial facilitation. This approach was developed by Janet Rifkin, professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, as a method of conflict resolution, and was adopted by the Program on Intergroup Relations at the University of Michigan as a method of facilitating dialogue across difference of social identity. [9] :4

A multi-partial approach to facilitation differs from both a neutral or impartial approach, as well as a model in which the facilitator acts as an advocate, such as in many feminist models. Multi-partial facilitation posits the presence of "dominant narratives" within dialogue, or sets of assumptions and beliefs based on socialization and cultural values. [9] If the facilitator were to be impartial and neutral in moments of conflict between dialogue participants, the dominant narrative would affirm the experiences and voices of the dominant group members and further marginalize the experience of marginalized participants. [9] A multi-partial facilitation approach differs from facilitator-advocate approaches in that it is equally invested in the participation and growth of all dialogue participants; it encourages self-reflection and awareness through engagement rather than direct confrontation, an approach based on the belief that "people who are not feeling threatened are more open to discussing their feelings and interests and are more open to discussing the effects the conflict is having on both groups". [10] Rather than directly confronting a group member's bias, a multi-partial facilitator points out the dominant narrative when evidence of it arises, and encourages group members to share their experiences, while simultaneously encouraging a critical analysis of the underlying assumptions and narratives at play. [9]

Counseling psychologist Derald Wing Sue said that instructors who have not done the work of reflecting on themselves racially or culturally tend to be poor facilitators of discussions about race. [11] Gaining critical racial consciousness through self-exploration, as well as exploration of the experiences of other racial groups, is a prerequisite for claiming an antiracist stance and for successfully leading race talks, according to Sue. [11] According to education professor Ximena Zúñiga, the number one competency for facilitators—alongside small-group leadership skills—is having a deep understanding of their own social identities as well as the social identities of others. [1]

In secondary schools and colleges

Universities worldwide offer intergroup dialogue programs to their students. Intergroup dialogue programs are frequently launched as part of larger campus diversity and social justice initiatives seeking to address tensions and conflict related to social identity, most centrally, race. Campuses vary in their approach to intergroup dialogue, "tailor[ing] to the specific needs of the campus, school, academic department or student affairs unit that it serves". [1] Dialogue groups are generally housed in on-campus organizations or academic departments, included as course offerings in social work, sociology, psychology, American studies, peace and conflict studies and education. Students enrolled in intergroup dialogue coursework are typically required to complete supplementary readings, reflections, papers and in some cases, field work. [12]

Teacher Matthew R. Kay, writing for secondary school teachers, has advocated for establishing a safe space in classrooms where students can comfortably talk about controversial topics; "authentic listening" is essential. [13]

Evaluation and outcomes

Research shows that intergroup dialogue has positive impacts on participants' understanding of diversity and social justice issues. [14] [15] After conducting a qualitative interview study with dialogue participants, [16] Anna Yeakley found that connecting through a "depth of personal sharing" has been shown to play a significant role in creating positive dialogue outcomes, while participants who "disconnected" in response to hurtful intergroup conflicts reported negative outcomes. [16] [17] Yeakley highlighted the importance of facilitator training, and found that five facilitation skills are essential to promoting positive outcomes: [17] :25

  1. creating a safe space,
  2. recognizing signs of negative processes,
  3. encouraging and supporting depth of personal sharing,
  4. engaging conflicts as teachable moments, and
  5. attending to identity differences in awareness and experience.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prejudice</span> Attitudes based on preconceived categories

Prejudice can be an affective feeling towards a person based on their perceived group membership. The word is often used to refer to a preconceived evaluation or classification of another person based on that person's perceived political affiliation, sex, gender, gender identity, beliefs, values, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race, ethnicity, language, nationality, culture, complexion, beauty, height, body weight, occupation, wealth, education, criminality, sport-team affiliation, music tastes or other personal characteristics.

Group dynamics is a system of behaviors and psychological processes occurring within a social group, or between social groups. The study of group dynamics can be useful in understanding decision-making behaviour, tracking the spread of diseases in society, creating effective therapy techniques, and following the emergence and popularity of new ideas and technologies. These applications of the field are studied in psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, epidemiology, education, social work, leadership studies, business and managerial studies, as well as communication studies.

Transformative learning, as a theory, says that the process of "perspective transformation" has three dimensions: psychological, convictional, and behavioral.

Transformative learning is the expansion of consciousness through the transformation of basic worldview and specific capacities of the self; transformative learning is facilitated through consciously directed processes such as appreciatively accessing and receiving the symbolic contents of the unconscious and critically analyzing underlying premises.

In-group favoritism, sometimes known as in-group–out-group bias, in-group bias, intergroup bias, or in-group preference, is a pattern of favoring members of one's in-group over out-group members. This can be expressed in evaluation of others, in allocation of resources, and in many other ways.

Intercultural communication is a discipline that studies communication across different cultures and social groups, or how culture affects communication. It describes the wide range of communication processes and problems that naturally appear within an organization or social context made up of individuals from different religious, social, ethnic, and educational backgrounds. In this sense, it seeks to understand how people from different countries and cultures act, communicate, and perceive the world around them. Intercultural communication focuses on the recognition and respect of those with cultural differences. The goal is mutual adaptation between two or more distinct cultures which leads to biculturalism/multiculturalism rather than complete assimilation. It promotes the development of cultural sensitivity and allows for empathic understanding across different cultures.

National identity is a person's identity or sense of belonging to one or more states or to one or more nations. It is the sense of "a nation as a cohesive whole, as represented by distinctive traditions, culture, and language". National identity may refer to the subjective feeling one shares with a group of people about a nation, regardless of one's legal citizenship status. National identity is viewed in psychological terms as "an awareness of difference", a "feeling and recognition of 'we' and 'they'". National identity also includes the general population and diaspora of multi-ethnic states and societies that have a shared sense of common identity identical to that of a nation while being made up of several component ethnic groups. Hyphenated ethnicities are an example of the confluence of multiple ethnic and national identities within a single person or entity.

In psychology and other social sciences, the contact hypothesis suggests that intergroup contact under appropriate conditions can effectively reduce prejudice between majority and minority group members. Following WWII and the desegregation of the military and other public institutions, policymakers and social scientists had turned an eye towards the policy implications of interracial contact. Of them, social psychologist Gordon Allport united early research in this vein under intergroup contact theory.

In social psychology, superordinate goals are goals that are worth completing but require two or more social groups to cooperatively achieve. The idea was proposed by social psychologist Muzafer Sherif in his experiments on intergroup relations, run in the 1940s and 1950s, as a way of reducing conflict between competing groups. Sherif's idea was to downplay the two separate group identities and encourage the two groups to think of themselves as one larger, superordinate group. This approach has been applied in many contexts to reduce intergroup conflict, including in classrooms and business organizations. However, it has also been critiqued by other social psychologists who have proposed competing theories of intergroup conflict, such as contact theory and social categorization theory.

The minimal group paradigm is a method employed in social psychology. Although it may be used for a variety of purposes, it is best known as a method for investigating the minimal conditions required for discrimination to occur between groups. Experiments using this approach have revealed that even arbitrary distinctions between groups, such as preferences for certain paintings, or the color of their shirts, can trigger a tendency to favor one's own group at the expense of others, even when it means sacrificing in-group gain.

Social identity is the portion of an individual's self-concept derived from perceived membership in a relevant social group.

An ethnolinguistic group is a group that is unified by both a common ethnicity and language. Most ethnic groups share a first language. However, "ethnolinguistic" is often used to emphasise that language is a major basis for the ethnic group, especially with regards to its neighbours.

Self-categorization theory is a theory in social psychology that describes the circumstances under which a person will perceive collections of people as a group, as well as the consequences of perceiving people in group terms. Although the theory is often introduced as an explanation of psychological group formation, it is more accurately thought of as general analysis of the functioning of categorization processes in social perception and interaction that speaks to issues of individual identity as much as group phenomena. It was developed by John Turner and colleagues, and along with social identity theory it is a constituent part of the social identity approach. It was in part developed to address questions that arose in response to social identity theory about the mechanistic underpinnings of social identification.

Moral Development focuses on the emergence, change and understanding of morality from infancy through adulthood. Morality develops across a lifetime and is influenced by an individual's experiences and behavior when faced with moral issues through different periods of physical and cognitive development. Morality concerns an individual's reforming sense of what is right and wrong; it is for this reason that young children have different moral judgment and character than that of a grown adult. Morality in itself is often a synonym for "rightness" or "goodness." It also refers to a specific code of conduct that is derived from one's culture, religion or personal philosophy that guides one's actions, behaviors and thoughts.

Intergroup anxiety is the social phenomenon identified by Walter and Cookie Stephan in 1985 that describes the ambiguous feelings of discomfort or anxiety when interacting with members of other groups. Such emotions also constitute intergroup anxiety when one is merely anticipating interaction with members of an outgroup. Expectations that interactions with foreign members of outgroups will result in an aversive experience is believed to be the cause of intergroup anxiety, with an affected individual being anxious or unsure about a number of issues. Methods of reducing intergroup anxiety and stress including facilitating positive intergroup contact.

Feminist pedagogy is a pedagogical framework grounded in feminist theory. It embraces a set of epistemological theories, teaching strategies, approaches to content, classroom practices, and teacher-student relationships. Feminist pedagogy, along with other kinds of progressive and critical pedagogy, considers knowledge to be socially constructed.

Global citizenship education (GCED) is a form of civic learning that involves students' active participation in projects that address global issues of a social, political, economic, or environmental nature. The two main elements of GCE are 'global consciousness'; the moral or ethical aspect of global issues, and 'global competencies', or skills meant to enable learners to participate in changing and developing the world. The promotion of GCE was a response by governments and NGOs to the emergence of supranational institution, regional economic blocs, and the development of information and communications technologies. These have all resulted in the emergence of a more globally oriented and collaborative approach to education. GCE addresses themes such as peace and human rights, intercultural understanding, citizenship education, respect for diversity and tolerance, and inclusiveness.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Intergroup relations</span>

Intergroup relations refers to interactions between individuals in different social groups, and to interactions taking place between the groups themselves collectively. It has long been a subject of research in social psychology, political psychology, and organizational behavior.

Diversity ideology refers to individual beliefs regarding the nature of intergroup relations and how to improve them in culturally diverse societies. A large amount of scientific literature in social psychology studies diversity ideologies as prejudice reduction strategies, most commonly in the context of racial groups and interracial interactions. In research studies on the effects of diversity ideology, social psychologists have either examined endorsement of a diversity ideology as individual difference or used situational priming designs to activate the mindset of a particular diversity ideology. It is consistently shown that diversity ideologies influence how individuals perceive, judge and treat cultural outgroup members. Different diversity ideologies are associated with distinct effects on intergroup relations, such as stereotyping and prejudice, intergroup equality, and intergroup interactions from the perspectives of both majority and minority group members. Beyond intergroup consequences, diversity ideology also has implications on individual outcomes, such as whether people are open to cultural fusion and foreign ideas, which in turn predict creativity.

Intercultural dialogue (ICD) "occurs when members of different cultural groups, who hold conflicting opinions and assumptions, speak to one another in acknowledgment of those differences". It builds upon the concept of dialogue, which refers to at least two people holding a conversation. And it builds upon the term intercultural, which is typically used to refer to people communicating across differences in nationality, race and ethnicity, or religion. Dialogue has several meanings: it sometimes refers to dialogue in a script, which simply means people talking, but more often it refers to "a quality of communication characterized by the participants' willingness and ability simultaneously to be radically open to the other(s) and to articulate their own views. ... Dialogue's primary goal is understanding rather than agreement."

Patricia Gurin is a social psychologist known for her work documenting the benefits of student and faculty diversity in higher education. She is the Nancy Cantor Distinguished University Professor Emerita of Psychology and Women's Studies at The University of Michigan.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Zúñiga, Ximena (January 2003). "Bridging differences through dialogue" (PDF). About Campus. 7 (6): 8–16. doi:10.1177/108648220300700603.
  2. Schoem, David Louis; Hurtado, Sylvia, eds. (2001). Intergroup dialogue: deliberative democracy in school, college, community, and workplace. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. doi:10.3998/mpub.11280. ISBN   0472097822. OCLC   46449022.
  3. Benson, Lee; Harkavy, Ira; Johanek, Michael C.; Puckett, John (Summer 2009). "The enduring appeal of community schools: education has always been a community endeavor" (PDF). American Educator . 33 (2): 22–47.
  4. Burbules, Nicholas C. (2000). "The limits of dialogue as a critical pedagogy". In Trifonas, Peter Pericles (ed.). Revolutionary pedagogies: cultural politics, instituting education, and the discourse of theory . London; New York: Routledge. p.  251–273 (252). ISBN   0415925681. OCLC   42771759.
  5. 1 2 Martinson, Marty; Su, Celina (2012). "Contrasting organizing approaches: the 'Alinsky tradition' and Freirian organizing approaches". In Minkler, Meredith (ed.). Community organizing and community building for health and welfare (3rd ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. pp. 59–77 (65). ISBN   9780813552996. OCLC   756837017.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Zúñiga, Ximena; Nagda, Biren (Ratnesh) A.; Chesler, Mark; Cytron-Walker, Adena (2007). Intergroup dialogue in higher education: meaningful learning about social justice . ASHE higher education report. Vol. 32. San Francisco: Wiley Subscription Services at Jossey-Bass. ISBN   9780787995799. ISSN   1551-6970. OCLC   85481071.
  7. 1 2 Zúñiga, Ximena; Lopez, Gretchen E.; Ford, Kristie A., eds. (2014). Intergroup dialogue: engaging difference, social identities and social justice. London; New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315540603. ISBN   9780415819701. OCLC   827266907.
  8. Kim, Joohan; Kim, Eun Joo (2008). "Theorizing dialogic deliberation: everyday political talk as communicative action and dialogue". Communication Theory . 18 (1): 51–70. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00313.x.
  9. 1 2 3 4 Fisher, Roger; Petryk, Taryn (2017). Balancing asymmetrical social power dynamics (Working paper). Program on Intergroup Relations, University of Michigan. 3. Retrieved 2019-12-31.
  10. Stephan, Walter G. (2008). "Psychological and communication processes associated with intergroup conflict resolution". Small Group Research . 39 (28): 28–41. doi:10.1177/1046496407313413.
  11. 1 2 Sue, Derald Wing (2015). "Facilitating difficult race discussions: five ineffective strategies and five successful strategies" (PDF). Wiley.com. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2020-11-23. Retrieved 19 October 2020.
  12. Zúñiga, Ximena. "Fostering intergroup dialogue on campus: essential ingredients". Diversity Digest. Association of American Colleges and Universities. Archived from the original on 2018-03-27. Retrieved 2015-02-20.
  13. Kay, Matthew R. (2018). Not light, but fire: how to lead meaningful race conversations in the classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Stenhouse Publishers. p. 16. ISBN   9781625310989. OCLC   1032293262. See also: "Listening skills help create safe space for difficult dialogue". MiddleWeb. 15 October 2018. Retrieved 23 November 2020.
  14. Alimo, Craig; Kelly, Robert; Clark, Christine (2002). "Diversity initiatives in higher education: intergroup dialogue program student outcomes and implications for campus radical climate: a case study". Multicultural Education. 10 (1): 49–53. ProQuest   216312081.
  15. Dessel, Adrienne; Rogge, Mary E. (December 2008). "Evaluation of intergroup dialogue: a review of the empirical literature". Conflict Resolution Quarterly. 26 (2): 199–238. doi:10.1002/crq.230. hdl: 2027.42/61545 .
  16. 1 2 Yeakley, Anna Maria (1998). The nature of prejudice change: positive and negative change processes arising from intergroup contact experiences (PhD). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. hdl:2027.42/131580. ProQuest   9910030.
  17. 1 2 Yeakley, Anna Maria (2011). "In the hands of facilitators: student experiences in dialogue and implications for facilitator training". In Maxwell, Kelly E.; Nagda, Biren (Ratnesh) A.; Thompson, Monita C.; Gurin, Patricia (eds.). Facilitating intergroup dialogues: bridging differences, catalyzing change. Sterling, VA: Stylus Pub. pp.  23–36. ISBN   9781579222901. OCLC   609538380.

Further reading