Using student development theory to inform intergroup dialogue research, theory, and practice.

Abstract

Research indicates that students’ developmental capacity must be accounted for if postsecondary institutions’ various diversity programs, pedagogies, and related efforts are to be successful. One such effort that has increased in prevalence in recent years, intergroup dialogue (IGD), is a pedagogy that brings together diverse groups of students to engage in sustained, facilitated dialogues on topics related to diversity and social justice. Decades of IGD research have informed the development of the critical-dialogic theoretical framework of IGD, which describes how this particular approach to dialogue engages students in communicative, cognitive, and emotional processes that promote intergroup understanding, intergroup relationships, and intergroup collaboration and action. Using the theory of self-authorship and theories of epistemological development as analytical lenses, this article examines the extent to which the critical-dialogic theoretical framework of IGD, along with the research that informed its development, account for factors associated with students’ interpersonal, intrapersonal, and epistemological development. This analysis and conceptual integration of the IGD, self-authorship, and epistemological development literatures reveal that IGD research and theory development have focused primarily on matters of interpersonal relationships and intrapersonal identity, with less attention given to students’ epistemological assumptions of knowledge, knowing, and related meaning-making. Implications for IGD theory development, practice, and future research are discussed.

Intergroup Dialogue Pedagogy, Processes, and Outcomes: The Moderating Role of Students’ Openness to Multiple Perspectives

“…Though a comprehensive review of the epistemological development literature is beyond the scope of this study (see Hofer & Pintrich, 1997 for a review), Jackson highlights how multiple theories of college student epistemological development (e.g., Baxter Magolda, 1992;Belenky et al, 1986;King & Kitchener, 1994;Perry, 1981) collectively illuminate three general levels of development that describe college students' assumptions of knowledge and knowing (summarized in Table 2), thus prompting the consideration of how dispositions associated with such assumptions (e.g., students' openness to multiple perspectives) influence students' IGD engagement and overall experience. Second, Jackson (2020) suggests that this lesser attention to matters of epistemological development in IGD scholarship is especially noteworthy, given King's (2010) analysis suggesting that students' levels of epistemological development may moderate their intrapersonal and interpersonal capacity and development (see also Endicott et al, 2003;Guthrie et al, 2000;King & Baxter Magolda, 2005;King & Kitchener, 1994;Torres & Baxter Magolda, 2004). In this sense, epistemological development can be seen as the "first among equals" or "strong partner" (King, 2010, p. 167) in the holistic development of students, "provid[ing] a foundation without which development in the [intrapersonal and interpersonal] domains is restricted" (King, 2010, p. 177).…”

“…Recent IGD scholarship has called for increased attention to the ways in which students' developmental capacities and corresponding dispositions influence students' IGD experience (Jackson, 2020;Quaye, 2012;Quaye & Johnson, 2016). In line with this call, the present study builds on previous IGD and student development research by considering and analyzing the ways in which a particular developmental disposition (students' openness to multiple perspectives) may moderate students' engagement in and experience of IGD.…”

“…The purpose of the present study was to analyze the critical-dialogic theoretical framework of intergroup dialogue in light of more recent calls for increased attention to the student development implications of IGD (Jackson, 2020;Quaye, 2012;Quaye & Johnson, 2016). Specifically, this study was grounded in the theory of self-authorship (Baxter Magolda, 2001;Kegan, 1994), theories of epistemological development (Baxter Magolda, 1992;Belenky et al, 1986;King & Kitchener, 1994;Perry, 1981), and multiple studies (see King, 2010 for a review) suggesting that dispositions associated with students' epistemological assumptions of knowledge and knowing (e.g., their openness to multiple perspectives) may moderate students' engagement in intergroup processes and outcomes that are more interpersonal and intrapersonal in nature, such as IGD's communicative, cognitive, and affective processes and outcomes (see Figure 1) (Jackson, 2020;King & Baxter Magolda, 2005).…”

“…Though the research and practice of IGD have been grounded primarily in social psychological theories of intergroup relations (Gurin et al, 2013;Zúñiga et al, 2007), more recent scholarship has begun to illuminate ways in which student development theory can inform IGD research, theory development, and practice (Jackson, 2020;Quaye, 2012;Quaye & Johnson, 2016). For example, in Jackson's (2020) analysis of the critical-dialogic theoretical framework of intergroup dialogue (see Figure 1) and the research that informed its development, they identified the theory of self-authorship (Baxter Magolda, 2001;Kegan, 1994) as a useful lens through which new directions for IGD research, theory, and practice could be illuminated.…”

“…For example, interpreting Figures 3 and 4 "from left to right" can indeed offer practical insights into the varying IGD experiences of students with different levels of openness, as discussed previously. At the same time, IGD scholars remind us that the intergroup processes and outcomes associated with IGD (see Figure 1) can happen concurrently, recursively, and therefore not always sequentially and in the discrete steps that can be implied by the critical-dialogic theoretical framework of intergroup dialogue (Gurin et al, 2013;Jackson, 2020). This recognition is useful in considering the ways in which intergroup phenomena (e.g., openness to multiple perspectives) may indeed have cyclical influences on IGD processes, outcomes, and students' overall learning and development over time.…”