Framing Interfaith Dialogue in Australia's Multicultural Setting: Mounting an Interfaith and Intercultural Network in Melbourne's Northern Region

Dialogue and Other ‘Men's Business’: Gender, Conflict and Multicultural Politics in the Diaspora

“…According to Gordon Allport's (1954) original formulation of the contact hypothesis, the positive effects of intergroup contact are dependent on parties having equal status within the contact situation, intergroup cooperation, the formation of common goals and the support of authorities, law or custom; to this, Thomas Pettigrew (1998: 76) adds the opportunity for participants to become friends beyond the intergroup contact setting. The 'thirdparty' setting of the diaspora context would seemingly provide for these conditions: while homeland conflicts inevitably take on their own forms in the diaspora and conflicting parties can typically avoid each other more easily (Michael 2013), the distance of diaspora nevertheless affords unique opportunities for positive interaction and sustained engagement rarely available in the homeland itself. Certainly, there are indications that participants not only enjoy the opportunity to interface with the 'other' in diaspora dialogues, but that they also develop more complicated perspectives on homeland conflict (Lyons 2004).…”

Worldviews education: cosmopolitan peacebuilding and preventing violent extremism

“…Educational settings have been identified by some scholars as key places for facilitating positive interactions between different groups, promoting respect for the other, and providing opportunities to develop higher levels of knowledge about minority groups (Ho, 2011, 603;Michael, 2013). Regarding critical thinking, Ghosh et al (2015;2017), Grossman (2014) and Lorentzen (2016) contend that it is important for students to become critical thinkers, to be able to argue against extremist positions.…”

Diversity in Density

“…Amin (2002: 959) calls these spaces 'micropublics of everyday social contact and encounter.' Other scholars focus on the more formal dimensions of interaction, based within and between community associations (Cantle 2005;Michael 2013;Phillips et al 2014), examining the potential to enable cross-cultural engagement at an institutional level, which can develop naturally from the interaction inherent in the participatory process. In contrast, other scholars, drawing on conflict theory, have claimed that increased cultural diversity has a negative impact on social cohesion, neighborly exchange and tolerance of ethnic others (Leigh 2006;Putnam 2007;Wickes et al 2013).…”