Table of Contents

Abstract

(see Schoem and Hurtado, 2001, for descriptions of selected programs).Intergroup dialogue brings together twelve to eighteen people from two or more social identity groups: men and women; white people, biracial/ multiracial/ethnic people, and people of color; blacks, Latinos/as, and Native Americans; Arabs and Jews; lesbians, gay men, bisexual and heterosexual people; people from working-, middle-, and upper-socioeconomic class backgrounds; and Christians, Muslims, and Jews. These meetings are supported and guided by a skilled team of cofacilitators that use an educational curriculum integrating cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions of learning. The cofacilitators are chosen to reflect the composition of the dialogue; for example, a dialogue involving men and women would have one male and one female cofacilitator.Intergroup dialogue is marked by its critical-dialogic approach to exploring commonalities and differences in and between social identity groups, its reliance on sustained communication and involvement to bridge differences and move participants to deeper and more meaningful levels of engagement, and its intergroup focus. By recognizing the centrality of social group affiliation based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and other socially constructed categories, intergroup dialogue fosters a critical examination of the impact of power relations and social inequality on intergroup relations (Nagda and others, 1999;Zúñiga and Nagda, 2001).Intergroup dialogue is grounded in the assumptions that interpersonal and cross-group relations on campus are affected by the histories and current realities of intergroup conflict in the United States and that these conflicts must be explored through dialogic encounters. In contrast to "banking" approaches to diversity education in which the teacher-expert deposits knowledge into students as if they were empty vessels waiting to be filled (Freire, 1970), dialogic interaction promotes active, generative, and transformative connections 3 Intergroup Dialogue in Higher Educationand explorations among participants and between participants and facilitators. Intergroup dialogue recognizes the importance of listening and speaking honestly and openly to encourage shared meaning and improved interpersonal communication and relationships (Ellinor and Gerard, 1998;Weiler, 1994).Communication flows in many directions as thoughts and feelings are shared and questions and issues are posed for everyone to consider. Dialogue involves "periods of lots of noise as people share and lots of silence as people muse" (Wink, 2005, p. 41). Different from "mere talk" or casual conversations, dialogue is an intentional, facilitated process that has a focus and a purpose (Brookfield and Preskill, 2005;Chesler, Lewis, and Crowfoot, 2005;Romney, 2003). Dialogue differs from debate, where one party tries to convince the other party (or an audience) of the correctness of his or her own position as well as the incorrectness of the other position. Dialogue, unlike debate, builds a r...

The scientist-practitioner-advocate model: Addressing contemporary training needs for social justice advocacy.

“…Self-awareness also includes continual examination of one's own biases and areas for further learning and growth in relation to multicultural issues. Participating in dia logues focused on social identities and social issues (Zuniga, Nagda, Chesler, & Walker, 2007) can help in this self-examination and can also help identify one's "hot buttons" and emotional reactions when communicating with others about these issues. The self-awareness component of knowledge overlaps with the domains of attitudes and values, particularly with respect to the professional "habits of mind" (Dyche & Epstein, 2011) we hoped to instill.…”

“…Dialogue also responds to recent calls for greater attention to social justice in group counseling (Bumes & Ross, 2010;Smith & Shin, 2008;Speight & Vera, 2008). IGD is a small group intervention that creates a space for sustained, face-to-face communication between individuals from social identity groups with a history of tension or conflict (e.g., people of color with White people; sexual minority people with heterosexual people) (Zuniga et al, 2007). Dialogue is different from other forms of communication such as debate, in that it aims to develop mutual understanding of others, from their perspectives, rather than to "win" or persuade others that one's own perspective is the correct one (Bohm, 1996).…”

“…The knowledge and awareness goals of IGD includes developing a critical con sciousness about personal identities, social identities, and hierar chical social systems. The skills goals of IGD include building relationships and capacities for sustained communication across groups (i.e., communicating through conflict rather than disengag ing or avoiding conflictual issues), together with skills for strengthening individual and collective capacities to promote so cial justice (Zuniga et al, 2007).…”

“…For undergraduate students, the IGDs are intended to complement the more traditional didactic instruction that they receive in the larger multicultural psychology course, thus adding an important affective component to learning about often difficult and emotion ally laden issues (e.g., experiences with privilege and oppression). The groups follow a four-stage model (Zuniga et al, 2007) in which participants (a) work to build trusting relationships, (b) explore commonalities and differences in experiences based on social identities (e.g., experiences with privilege and oppression), (c) explore and dialogue about difficult "hot topics" related to identity on an institutional or systemic level (e.g., in an IGD on sexual orientation, participants might dialogue about same-sex marriage), and (d) prior to termination, engage in alliance building, and social action planning. Additional goals for doctoral students include building on an introspective analysis of one's own social identities and experiences with privilege and oppression.…”

Intergroup dialogue: A justice‐centered pedagogy to address gender inequity in STEM

“…It is also grounded in critical multicultural education (Freire, 1970(Freire, /2008) that seeks to develop an awareness of inequitable social systems and to empower those from marginalized groups. IGD brings together individuals from groups with a conflict between them (e.g., women and men) for sustained, face-to-face communication in the form of dialogue (Zúñiga et al, 2007). Dialogue is a unique form of communication aiming to develop WHITE ET AL.…”