Arab/Jewish Intergroup Dialogue Courses

Abstract

Tensions emanating from the Israeli/Palestinian conflict lead to misunderstanding, segregation, and conflict between Arab and Jewish students on U.S. college campuses. Teaching about this conflict presents particular challenges for faculty and student affairs staff. This study uses a participatory action research method that engages Arab and Jewish students in understanding and changing issues of concern to their own campus communities. A qualitative analysis of the final papers and interviews from the students in Arab/Jewish intergroup dialogue courses indicated that the students had different pre-perceptions of each other, experienced conflict and strong emotions in the dialogue, and reported outcomes that progressed from the development of communication and listening skills to critical self-reflection, perspective-taking and empathy, development of friendships, and action for social change. The students continued to struggle with understanding each other and maintaining relationships. Recommendations for pedagogy and research are discussed in this article.

Intergroup Dialogue: A Review of Recent Empirical Research and Its Implications for Research and Practice

“…In the last decade, numerous studies have demonstrated support for IGD by detailing positive outcomes associated with participation in IGD. Though the topics of the IGDs varied (e.g., Jewish and Arab individuals, Dessel & Ali, 2012; social class, Madden, 2015; political views Hess, Rynczak, Minarik, & Landrum-Brown, 2010), as did the formats (e.g., traditional four-stage model vs. a model that begins with affinity groups), several similar outcomes were discussed. Common outcomes were (a) identity and ally development, (b) perspective-taking, (c) attitude changes, (d) critical consciousness, (e) skill development, and (f) action preparedness.…”

“…IGD requires participants to reflect on their own identities and to explore associated forms of privilege and/or oppression. Participants in multiple studies discussed having a new understanding of self (Hess et al, 2010), learning about their social group (Dessel, Woodford, & Warren, 2011; Madden, 2015; Rozas, 2007), and engaging in self-reflection (Dessel & Ali, 2012). In some cases, increased self-awareness also led to greater salience of social identities (Sanders & Mahalingam, 2012).…”

“…Students in a sexual orientation dialogue discussed gaining knowledge that challenged existing beliefs and developing relationships with people they expected to dislike (Dessel et al, 2013). Dessel and Ali (2012) found Arab and Jewish students espoused much different ideas of out-group members after their dialogue experience and acknowledged that their ideas may have been based on untrue stereotypes.…”

“…Much of the research we reviewed highlighted participants’ skill development ( n = 15). Communication skills and conflict resolution were both common outcomes (Dessel & Ali, 2012; Griffin et al, 2012; Gurin-Sands, Gurin, Nagda, & Osuna, 2012; Hess et al, 2010; Hopkins & Domingue, 2015; Richards-Schuster & Aldana, 2013). In terms of communication skills, IGD is founded on the premise that participants will dialogue, not debate (Flick, 1998; Nagda & Gurin, 2013).…”

The long road from cold war to warm peace: Building shared collective memory through trust

“…Thus, third parties, such as mediators and facilitators can help to create a forum in which groups engage in a structured process that enables groups to listen to each other and acknowledge their suffering (Kelman, 2008;Ron & Maoz, 2013). Furthermore, as previously mentioned, third parties can lend integrity to the process, help groups to structure communication, and encourage listening and respectful responses to each other's narratives (Dessel & Ali, 2012;Kelman, 2005;Maoz & Ellis, 2008).…”