Using intergroup dialogue to promote social justice and change.
Dessel, Adrienne ; Rogge, Mary E. ; Garlington, Sarah B. 等
Social workers are not strangers to polarization and conflict,
whether these phenomena manifest themselves in family or organizations,
as personal discord, or as political dispute. Social work spans the
internal--external, personal--political continuum in research and
practice and addresses conflict at all levels of society. Topics such as
politics, racism, religion, and culture are often flashpoints for social
conflict, and individuals who hold strong beliefs can quickly become
polarized by these highly charged subjects, with results that range from
personal stress to acts of individual and international aggression.
Social workers are also not strangers to polarization in our own
profession. In many ways, micro and macro practice remain
compartmentalized and rarely overlap. A focus on psychotherapeutic practice concerns those who view the fundamental mission of social work
as addressing the larger societal needs of society's most
disenfranchised members (Specht & Courtney, 1994). Conversely, the
profession's historical emphasis on social justice presents a
dilemma to workers in traditional mental health and medical models who
focus on the internal dynamics, deficiencies, and strengths of
individuals, dyads, and families (Dewees, 2002). The goal of integrating
individual need and social activism poses a duality in the social work
profession that has been difficult to span.
In this article, we examine intergroup dialogue work as a bridging
mechanism through which social workers in clinical, other direct
practice, organizer, activist, and other roles across the micro-macro
practice spectrum can engage with people in conflict to advance
advocacy, justice, and social change. Intergroup dialogue is a
facilitated community experience designed to provide a safe yet communal
space to express anger and indignation about injustice. It is a method
through which social work practitioners who struggle to effect social
change may address power, cultural differences, and divisive issues
constructively (Agbaria & Cohen, 2002). Intergroup dialogue has the
potential to harness extraordinary power toward the goal of achieving
personal and community transformation, conflict resolution, advocacy,
and social change.
INTERGROUP DIALOGUE WORK
The extensive literature review carried out for this article
indicates that intergroup dialogue work in the public arena is widely
representative of many disciplines and is gaining currency in social
work (Nagda & Zuniga, 2003; Schoem & Hurtado, 2001). A thorough
review of theoretical approaches influential in the development of
intergroup dialogue is beyond the scope of this article, but we provide
an extensive bibliography elsewhere (Dessel, Garlington, & Rogge,
2005).
Definition
Intergroup dialogue work is a process designed to involve
individuals and groups in an exploration of societal issues about which
views differ, often to the extent that polarization and conflict occur.
As noted earlier, intergroup dialogue in the public arena is a
facilitated community experience designed to provide a safe yet communal
space to express anger and indignation about injustice. Participants are
engaged in, witness, and are affected by a facilitated community
experience. They strive to avoid unproductive language, foster new
listening skills, improve communication patterns, value differences, and
develop shared meanings (Chasin et al., 1996). Intergroup dialogue
potentiates a democratic process that acknowledges and respects all
parties, creates a context that reinforces the notion that change is
possible, and transforms relationships toward positive social change.
Through such changes, public decision making is influenced, and new,
previously unexplored results can be produced (Schoem, 2003;
Zubizaretta, 2002).
Characteristics of intergroup dialogue include fostering an
environment that enables participants to speak and listen in the present
while understanding the contributions of the past and the unfolding of
the future. This type of environment is created by factors such as the
choice of location for the dialogue, the establishment of communication
and relationships with dialogue participants, and knowledgeable design
and facilitation of dialogue. Participants are asked to suspend
assumptions, confirm their unfamiliarity with each other, be
spontaneous, and prepare for unanticipated consequences. They are
encouraged to collaborate willingly, be vulnerable, and believe in the
authenticity of all participants (Cissna & Anderson, 2002). Public
dialogue is a facilitated process with various pedagogical,
participatory, and other dynamic approaches to such facilitation (Shor
& Friere, 1987).
Intergroup dialogue among those who do not know each other, on
topics about which opinions may differ, brings into focus the
possibilities for genuine openness, listening, and transformation. In a
recent community-based, intergroup dialogue on same-sex marriage facilitated by Adrienne Dessel, a transformative opportunity arose when
participants from a local Baptist church raised the possibility that
their religious community could choose to marry gay and lesbian partners
if they desired, even though they might have to break from their parent
organization. As this definition and example illustrate, intergroup
dialogue as a social change process includes relational concepts and
interventions familiar to social workers across the micro-macro practice
spectrum.
THE ROOTS AND LANGUAGE OF DIALOGUE
Physicist David Bohm, one of the most-cited authors on dialogue
work, noted that dialogue has its origins in the Greek word
"dialogos": "dia" meaning "through" and
"logos" meaning "the meaning of the word" (Bohm,
1996, p. 6). The creation of a stream of meaning that flows among and
through participants and attendance to the space among people are
enduring concepts in the dialogue literature. Bohm (1996) conceived of
dialogue as a "multifaceted process through which we explore our
closely held values, the nature and intensity of emotions, the patterns
of thought processes, the function of memory, the import of inherited
cultural myths, and the manner in which neurophysiologic processes
structure moment-to-moment experiences" (p. vii). He challenged
people to mutually exchange their perceptions of the world without
either forcing them on each other or conforming, as a means of
revolutionizing our culture (Bohm, 1992).
Dialogue affects our thinking as it influences our assumptions.
Bohm (1996) referred to the neurophysiological concept of
proprioception, or self-perception, and highlighted the problems that
arise in society when individuals are not proprioceptive in their
efforts to communicate. He postulated that if certain thoughts and
assumptions could be suspended and we could share our opinions without
hostility, then we would be able to engage in "collective
thought" that moves more creatively in new directions. We are more
likely to think together if we can create shared meaning and a
collective consciousness rather than simply search for facts. In
dialogue, people become observers of their own thinking (Senge, 1990).
As Shor and Friere (1987) suggested, to the extent that we reflect on
our reality and communicate to each other, there is knowing and social
transformation.
Currently, adversarial forms of communication dominate public
discourse. For those involved, the negative consequences range from
aggression to the elimination of creative solutions (Pharr, 1996;
Tannen, 1998). Intergroup dialogue is designed to be among the least
adversarial forms of communication and can be differentiated from other
forms of public discourse such as discussion, debate, and mediation by
examining the roots and concomitant uses of these words.
"Discussion," for example, shares the same root as
"percussion" or "concussion" and implies a passing
back and forth of ideas with the goal of pursuit of truth by one party.
"Debate" stems from the root word "debatre,"
"to fight," and refers to a formal exchange of opinions in an
argumentative form that involves attack, defense, and the potential of
destructive outcomes. The root word of "mediation" refers to
"a division in the middle," or settling a dispute, but not
inherently to engaging in personal growth. Chasin and colleagues (1996)
noted that without personal growth, resolutions achieved through
mediation may have no enduring value.
Just as intergroup dialogue is different from other forms of public
discourse, it is distinct from clinical, therapeutic processes such as
group therapy. Certainly, dialogue and therapeutic interventions that
engage multiple participants share an essential, common reliance on
exchange, interpretation of meaning, and transformation. Both processes
emphasize the importance of skilled facilitators. Intergroup dialogue,
however, does not ensure confidentiality or address individual issues
and internal dynamics to the degree that therapy does. Although both
dialogue and therapy depend on interpersonal dynamics, expectations
about the purpose, nature, and degree of self-disclosure differ. Isaacs
(1999), for example, talked of speaking "to the center of the
room" (p. 380) in intergroup dialogue--focusing on an object such
as a candle--as a technique that intentionally avoids the deeper,
intensive interpersonal interactions inherent in group therapy
processes. For social workers, the use of intergroup dialogue as an
approach to intergroup conflict combines the strengths of micro and
macro practice by creating an opportunity for critical self-analysis and
relational engagement together with systemic and structural change.
APPLICATIONS AND OUTCOMES
The illustrations of intergroup dialogue in not-for-profit or
community-based and academic settings that follow summarize the context
of the application, groups and issues addressed, outcomes reported, and
evaluation methods, when evaluation information has been reported. The
examples of intergroup dialogue reviewed here use a variety of
qualitative and quantitative data collection and assessment methods that
range from anecdotal report to hierarchical regression analysis. We note
methodological issues that in some cases limit claims to successful
outcomes and document evidence that speaks to the promise of intergroup
dialogue.
These examples are drawn from the not-for-profit or community-based
and academic settings, two major domains in which social workers carry
out a variety of functions. Overlap often occurs across such settings,
as with the Multicultural Experience in Leadership and Development
(MELD) example described in the next section, in which social work
academicians engaged with the community to evaluate the public dialogue
experience.
NOT-FOR-PROFIT OR COMMUNITY-BASED SETTINGS
Intergroup dialogue in community-based contexts ranges from study
circles with small groups to international cross-cultural dialogues.
Local Community-Based Intergroup Dialogue
A series of Interfaith Dialogue Forums, organized through the
regional office of the National Conference for Community and Justice and
facilitated by Adrienne Dessel and other National Conference for
Community and Justice board members, were held in Knoxville, Tennessee,
in 2003 and 2004. Faith-based groups are an integral part of local
social fabric, and a point of both convergence and divergence for many
in understanding their own lives as well as the greater society. Forum
topics included interfaith perspectives on racism, winter holidays,
religion in government, and same-gender marriage. The dialogues provided
opportunities to examine biases, highlight differences and similarities
among groups and individuals, and consider possibilities for social
change. This example illustrates the opportunity, through design and
facilitation of dialogue, to implement both clinical and community
practice social work knowledge of individual and group dynamics and
social action. Evaluation of the forums was anecdotal, informal, and
self-selected. Feedback from participants included letters and phone
calls in which respondent comments highlighted the promising practice of
interfaith dialogue and the importance of having more frequent public
forums to promote inclusion and change in the community.
Intergroup Dialogue in Leadership Training
In Detroit, Michigan, the MELD community program incorporated
dialogue in a yearlong multicultural experience in leadership
development. MELD is an example of how intergroup dialogue in leadership
training can affect the larger community. Information was gathered from
participants at regular intervals. Qualitative and quantitative
questions focused on program goals and skill acquisition. Alvarez and
Cabbil (2001) noted in regard to focus group, phone interview, and
mailed survey evaluations: "Participants reported reaching their
goals of personal change and commitment to social change and acquired
tools to work on that change. Alumni continued their involvement in
programs, such as an exploration of gay and lesbian issues in the
workplace and a critique of Middle Easterners in the media" (p.
14). Although Alvarez and Cabbil described their evaluation design, they
did not discuss research limitations or provide future research
recommendations.
Intergroup Dialogue in a Public Forum
For social workers, the Canadian Policy Research Network serves as
an example of public participation and community empowerment through a
one-day deliberative dialogue at 10 locations across Canada. The purpose
was to examine citizens' vision for Canada in 10 years, what steps
should be taken to fulfill that vision, and the role citizens and
organizations would play to achieve that future. After the dialogue, 162
(40 percent) of 408 participants responded to mailed, self-report
surveys about the effect of dialogue participation on how they defined
their roles in public life and how dialogue promoted citizen
participation in civic affairs. Ninety-one percent of survey respondents
described dialogue as useful in improving communication with decision
makers, 69 percent indicated that they had taken additional steps to
stay informed about public affairs (that is, reading the newspaper or
watching television), and 45 percent indicated that their participation
in community meetings and contact with political representatives had
increased since the dialogue (Saxena, 2003). These changes are positive;
however, Saxena did not discuss validity threats such as respondent
self-selection or other limitations to this research.
Application of Intergroup Dialogue in the Middle East
Intergroup dialogue has been applied, with reports of varying
success, in international to local conflict and coexistence work among
members of Arab, Palestinian, and Jewish communities. Dialogue studies
among these communities illustrate a mixture of desirable and
undesirable outcomes. In a case study of intergroup work with American
Arab and Jewish communities, Norman (1991) found that although
interethnic conflict continued to create tension, intergroup dialogue
helped group members manage conflict and engage in social action.
Khuri's (2004) participant observation study of an Arab-Jewish
intergroup dialogue in an academic setting suggested that students
increased their ability to "interact with those who were different
from them, to recognize multiple perspectives, and to clarify their own
beliefs and identities" (p. 244). Alatar and colleagues (2004)
surveyed members of 28 Arab--Jewish--Palestinian dialogue groups in the
United States and Canada to examine approaches to intergroup dialogue
and to determine group challenges and needs. These researchers found
that group members expanded their activity in public education and
outreach initiatives related to the Palestinian--Israeli conflict. On
the basis of these findings, they recommended organizing a national
network of dialogue groups, expanding training and other resources for
intergroup dialogue about interethnic conflict and using intergroup
dialogue for public education and action.
The utility of these findings and recommendations in regard to
Arab--Jewish--Palestinian dialogue are subject to the inherent
limitations of their selected research designs as well as
study--specific implementation flaws. Taken together, these and other
studies reported in this article suggest that intergroup dialogue can
lead to positive individual attitude and behavioral change that can in
turn lead to greater involvement in social justice action. This evidence
appears sufficient to warrant social workers' investment in
exploring the approach. Of particular ethical salience, however, are
studies that document unsuccessful intergroup dialogue interventions.
Limitations of Intergroup Dialogue. Abu--Nimer (1999, 2004)
assessed intervention models of the six largest Arab--Jewish encounter
programs in Israel, using quantitative surveys, qualitative interviews,
action research, and longitudinal studies. Seventy-five interviewers
observed interpersonal--individual, intragroup, and
intergroup--collective processes. Abu-Nimer also examined intervention
processes that involved affective, cognitive, contact, and socializing
experiences, many of which included intergroup dialogue. Although both
Jewish and Arab participants reported some success, Arab participants
were overall disappointed by limited relationship-building contact with
Jewish students and by limited dialogue focused on political and
structural societal change. Abu-Nimer (2004) concluded that interethnic
dialogue promoted "genuine reconciliation only when it addresses
conflict issues and needs, mutual and exclusive perceptions of justice,
and a shared vision of the future [italics added]" (p. 418).
Suleiman (2004) and Abu-Nimer (2004) also identified important
limitations in intergroup dialogue design and implementation that
included a poor balance of power distribution between Arab and Jewish
participants. Arab participants had to speak in Hebrew instead of Arabic
and were less familiar with the informal education and group process
techniques of these encounter programs (Abu-Nimer, 1999). Both Abu-Nimer
(1999) and Alatar and associates (2004) found that nondominant group
Arab and Palestinian participants tended to seek instrumental or
action-oriented outcomes from intergroup dialogue, whereas the goals of
dominant group members (that is, Jewish participants) were more
expressive and relational. Palestinian participants, for example,
reported that one has to "walk the talk": Action, not
dialogue, leads to social change (Alatar et al.).
Power Dynamics in Intergroup Dialogue. These researchers raise
important concerns about the degree to which intergroup dialogue can
truly overcome the dominant--nondominant power dynamics of social groups
in conflict. Studies cited in the following section on academic settings
also raise these concerns with respect to racial diversity, and we
consider these concerns a high priority for future research on
intergroup dialogue. Kuttab and Kaufman (1988), Alatar and colleagues
(2004), and others suggest intergroup dialogue tactics through which
inequitable power and other significant barriers have been--more rather
than less--successfully addressed. Kuttab and Kaufman noted that
"it is a rarely understood phenomenon that members of oppressed groups are generally ready and eager for dialogue" (p. 84). Given
Kuttab and Kaufman's comment; indicators of the efficacy and
challenges of intergroup dialogue for oppressed groups; and social
workers' commitment to ethical, informed, skilled practice with
members of oppressed groups, this intervention appears to deserve
serious exploration.
Other Settings
Social workers can engage in intergroup dialogue at a growing
number of centers and institutions (Table 1). The National Coalition for
Dialogue and Deliberation, for example, promotes continuing development
of the field of dialogue and deliberation through an extensive
clearinghouse function; its database includes 4,200 practitioners and
scholars. Search for Common Ground, an international nongovernment
organization, and the National Issues Forums use dialogue to resolve
social conflict and achieve societal change.
One of the most widely known not-for-profit dialogue programs, the
Public Conversations Project of the Family Institute of Cambridge, has
applied family therapy interventions to dialogue on intensively divisive
topics. The organization's objective is to create new ways of
relating among those who hold polarized positions. Its work involves
extensive collaboration with participants in assessing, designing,
convening, and facilitating dialogues (Chasin et al., 1996). Specific
communication tools are used to prevent repetition of historical,
entrenched, and unproductive communication patterns and to foster new
ways of interacting that may lead to innovation and action. The
organization works to resolve public polarization through dialogues such
as those held with prolife and prochoice partisans after the 1994
murders of two workers in two women's health clinics in Boston and
with stakeholders in land use disputes (Public Conversations Project,
2005).
ACADEMIC SETTINGS
Several social work academic programs have developed innovative
approaches to diversity and multiculturalism that incorporate intergroup
dialogue using pedagogical and experiential dialogue techniques, as well
as extracurricular intergroup dialogue opportunities (Table 2).
Of the dialogue-focused academic centers and institutes that
emerged in our review as most fully developed and well-known, only the
program at the University of Washington is housed in a social work
program. The University of Michigan and University of Illinois identify
social workers as key interdisciplinary collaborators. The Program on
Intergroup Relations at the University of Michigan emphasizes dialogue
groups as an approach to multicultural learning (Nagda & Zuniga,
2003; Spencer, 2004). The Program on Intergroup Relations has received
funding from the Council on Social Work Education's Millennium
Project. Part of the Program on Intergroup Relations' research
agenda is a longitudinal review of more than 4,000 college students who
participated in diversity-focused dialogue experiences at nine public
universities. To date, the findings of this review suggest that
participating students improved their analytical skills, cultural
awareness, and ability to think pluralistically and take the perspective
of others (Hurtado, 2005).
Diversity-Focused Dialogues
At the Intergroup Dialogue, Education, and Action (IDEA) Center at
the University of Washington School of Social Work, diversity-focused
dialogues are integrated into social work education as an innovative
method of teaching students about cultural diversity and oppression. The
work of both the IDEA Center and the University of Michigan stands out
in their intentional and structural emphasis on evaluation. For example,
in one study of student participation in dialogue groups, Nagda and
colleagues (2004) analyzed pretest-posttest survey data on the effects
of dialogue and mediating processes on students of color and white
students. Their hierarchical regression analysis indicated that both
students of color and white students rated intergroup dialogue higher
than lectures and readings, both types of learning were positively
related to action outcomes, and students of color rated their
involvement in this experience as more important than did the white
students.
At the University of Michigan, Gurin and associates (2002) used
well-conceived and detailed multiple regression analyses to examine data
from a longitudinal database on white, African American, and Asian
American students' perspectives of university diversity
initiatives. They controlled for a range of student and institutional
characteristics and tested how various diversity experiences with peers,
perspectives, and civil discourse affected students' perceptions
and how they engaged in learning. More specifically, these researchers
studied the effects of students' exposure to three types of
diversity (that is, diverse groups outside classroom settings, in
classroom settings, and through participation in multicultural events or
intergroup dialogues offered at the university) on five learning and
democratic values outcome variables (that is, active thinking,
intellectual engagement, the belief that individual differences and
democracy can be compatible, the ability to understand the perspective
of others, and racial and cultural engagement). In Gurin and
associates' Michigan study as well as in a larger national study,
all students' learning outcomes were affected positively in some
way by greater diversity experience. The effects for white students,
however, appeared to be the most consistent across types of diversity
experience. White students experienced the largest effects from
classroom diversity and participation in multicultural events and
intergroup dialogues. Informal interaction affected Asian and African
American students' perceptions that individual and group
differences can be compatible with democratic values. African American
students' participation in multicultural events and intergroup
dialogue produced statistically significant, positive effects on their
understanding of others' perspectives.
Smith College School of Social Work students, faculty, and staff
were polled after engaging in an intergroup dialogue project about race.
Dialogue goals included reduced racist attitudes and beliefs, improved
cross-racial understanding, and ameliorated racial tension (Miller &
Donner, 2000). Miller and Donner collected open-ended and scaled item
questionnaire data regarding the "impact and meaning of the racial
dialogue" to "describe and understand rather than to confirm
cause and effect relationships" (p. 42). Students of color and
white students agreed that racial dialogues were an important
intervention in dealing with racism and reported greater hope that
people from different backgrounds could listen to one another. White
students, however, reported gaining more from the dialogues than did
students of color; dialogue helped them challenge their feelings and
opinions about race and motivated them to become more involved in
antiracism efforts. Miller and Donner speculated that dialogue might
provide more learning opportunities for white participants as they
become more aware of their status and privilege, whereas people of color may see dialogues as useful only as they relate to social action.
At the University of Tennessee College of Social Work,
student-initiated and -implemented Study Circles against Racism (SCAR.)
combined dialogue work with social work practical education. These
groups drew from the work of the Study Circles Resource Center (2005), a
national organization that provides curriculums for various study circle
topics. Sarah B. Garlington, who was an MSSW student and SCAR organizer;
other student organizers; and participants used the groups to increase
the depth of their self-education about oppression, to improve their
capacity to work with diverse populations, and to effect social change.
In one recent academic year, students completed seven groups, with five
to eight students in each group and each group meeting over a five-week
period. Students in four of the groups self-selected to participate;
students in three groups participated as a supplemental activity to
their program of study. In anonymous postgroup surveys, student
facilitators noted the need for better and consistently implemented
evaluation. In addition, they noted that personal engagement in the
dialogue appeared to be higher in the self-selected groups than in the
supplemental activity groups.
For people with diverse positions and backgrounds, study circles
bridge the two purposes of promoting individual understanding and
working cohesively for change (Houle & Roberts, 2000). For social
work students, engaging in the SCAR groups also helped to bridge the
micro--macro methods of practice. As a national model, study circles
have been used in other academic arenas, such as building relationships
between schools and communities. A wide range of community--based
applications and the complexities of evaluating study circle outcomes
are detailed in Houle and Roberts's (2000) best practices report.
In this report, the researchers collected data from 17 communities that
used study circles to respond retroactively to local conflicts and
events that engendered community uneasiness and conflict, as well as
proactive efforts organized around upcoming events. In concert with the
17 communities, Houle and Roberts used qualitative research methods that
included focus groups, surveys, individual interviews, observation and
written materials review, and community tours. Participants in a number
of the 17 communities studied the effectiveness of study circles with
regard to changing attitudes and actions related to individual and
institutional racism. Houle and Roberts's report documented study
circle outcomes such as the creation of a race relations task force to
increase diversity in a school board.
ASSESSMENTS OF INTERGROUP DIALOGUE
In their summary of the state of intergroup dialogue research,
Schoem and Hurtado (2001) noted that although much remains to be done
with regard to methodological rigor and evaluation, several studies have
documented positive changes in program participants, processes, and
outcomes based on dialogue participation. Schoem and Hurtado's
review suggests that participant changes include increased personal and
social awareness with regard to identity and difference; increased
knowledge about other groups and social inequalities; greater commitment
to social responsibility and action; reduced stereotyping; more complex
thinking; improved communication skills; and a greater ability to manage
conflict. As a result of the IDEA Center, University of Michigan, and
other studies summarized in this article, intergroup dialogue has been
targeted as an important pedagogical method for preparing social work
students for professional practice that is culturally competent and
oriented in social justice (Hurtado, 2005; Nagda et al., 1999; Nagda
& Zuniga, 2003).
RECOMMENDATION
In this article, we have explored the practice of intergroup
dialogue and its implications for social workers across the micro-macro
spectrum. This exploration has revealed important merits and
limitations, in light of which we recommend that social workers consider
intergroup dialogue as a viable intervention through which to work with
groups in conflict to advance social justice and change. This
recommendation is paired with the caveat that although sufficient
evidence appears in research studies to warrant its further use, there
are sufficient limitations in existing research, particularly in
community-based settings, to prioritize additional research efforts, as
we discuss in the Research section. As with all interventions,
practitioners across the micro--macro spectrum should approach the use
of intergroup dialogue with a critical eye toward engaging in informed,
ethical, and evaluated implementation.
Social workers have much to contribute to intergroup dialogue given
our professional knowledge, skills, and experience with relationship
building, oppression, individual empowerment, advocacy, and systemic
approaches. Conversely, intergroup dialogue in community-based and
academic settings offers social workers another venue for social
intervention that can involve individuals, groups, organizations,
community, and society.
Enhancing Practice and Preparing New Practitioners
In community-based and academic settings, the use of intergroup
dialogue interventions to improve intergroup relations is expanding. To
use this approach ethically, well, and wisely, social workers must
understand the differences and similarities of intergroup dialogue in
comparison with other forms of public discourse, group therapy, and
other clinical approaches and with related interventions such as
multicultural education, conflict resolution, and workplace diversity
initiatives (Stephan & Stephan, 2001).
For social workers in clinical, other direct practice, organizer,
activist, and other roles, one of the first steps to engaging in
intergroup dialogue is to understand more fully its history, theory, and
application. Not-for-profit organizations such as the Study Circles
Resource Center and the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation
identify many community-based opportunities for dialogue training.
Contacting such resources can be a means of locating others interested
in intergroup dialogue locally, nationally, and internationally. In
their own communities, social workers can locate existing intergroup
dialogue activity through grassroots advocacy, faith-based, and other
organizations engaged in social justice work. The Interfaith Dialogue
Forums, mentioned earlier in this article and facilitated by Adrienne
Dessel, are one outcome of such a connection.
Every social worker knows of polarizing social issues in her or his
own community. Exploring the feasibility of intergroup dialogue is an
excellent incentive for clinical social workers, social work organizers,
activists, and others across the micro-macro spectrum to work together
in ways they might not have previously. Greater knowledge about
intergroup dialogue can only enhance social work's capacity in
group work, multicultural communication, and conflict management.
Conversely, the application of therapeutic and direct practice, group
management, public speaking, organizing, activism, and policy practice
skills are all important to improve relationships and pursue social
justice with groups and communities in conflict.
There are several benefits to preparing baccalaureate--and
master's-level social work students to use intergroup dialogue.
First, coursework and field integration would expose students to the
multidisciplinary theoretical nature of this work and pre pare students
with the knowledge and skills to practice it (Nagda & Zuniga, 2003).
Spencer's (2004) Intergroup Dialogue Facilitation for Multicultural
SocialWork course exemplifies intergroup dialogue pedagogy. Several
academically based social work programs incorporate dialogue work into
core curricula. Second, providing this content is consonant with social
work's mission of pursuing empowerment, social justice, and change
through building relationships. Finally, including intergroup dialogue
content can engage faculty, students, and field agency personnel across
the micro--macro practice spectrum in collaborative, creative, and
productive work.
Influencing Policy
Social workers across the micro--macro practice spectrum can use
intergroup dialogue to influence policy within organizations, among
organizations working together, and in the public policy arena. The
ubiquity of such applications within and across government, business,
not-for-profit or community-based settings, and academic sectors
complements the fact that social workers operate in and across these
sectors. Houle and Roberts's (2000) best practices report
illustrated the use of dialogue-based study circles to introduce
community members' opinions into school board policy decisions,
which changed the shape of school district operations. Study circles are
often used to evaluate and redesign intra-organizational policies with
regard to diversity concerns and to bring together community
representatives to assess interorganizational policies.
Social workers in clinical, other direct practice, organizer,
activist, and other roles all participate in various ways and times in
intra--and interorganizational task forces and coalitions that seek to
improve social, economic, and environmental well-being. Intergroup
dialogue frequently entails multiple organizations working together to
identify and define problems, to collect information, and to understand
issues in depth, with the intent to shape interorganizational policy.
Public policy can benefit from the application of dialogue skills and
values. Intergroup dialogue has been used, for example, to shape a
community input process that incorporated neighborhood members'
concerns about a federally funded Empowerment Zone (Seitz, Hansen,
Rogers, Lartson, & Hundley, 2002). Dialogue is inherently present in
participatory empowerment approaches to public policy making, to which
the social work profession is no stranger, whether the arena is local,
regional, national, or international.
Continuing and Expanding Research
There are important methodological issues to be examined with
regard to the utility of intergroup dialogue. Research on this
intervention in community settings is in an early stage, and the
methodological rigor used to assess outcomes, particularly outside of
academic settings, has been relatively low. Yet, as indicated by some of
the more rigorously designed and implemented studies to date, there
appears to be sufficient evidence of the merit of intergroup dialogue to
warrant further study in both academic and community-based settings. On
the basis of this article's discussion of intergroup dialogue, we
emphasize four aspects of research on which to focus next to improve the
intergroup dialogue knowledge base.
First, the research reviewed in this article indicates that
attentiveness to the importance of evaluating intergroup dialogue is on
the rise, but much yet needs to be done. In this regard, a comprehensive
compendium of research methods and tools used to assess intergroup
dialogue would be of great utility to community practitioners and to
academic researchers. Schoem and Hurtado (2001) and others have
identified, for example, three key sets of variables that need greater
understanding: (1) who engages in intergroup dialogue and why; (2) the
characteristics of public dialogue processes; and (3) short- and longer
term outcomes in regard to participant learning, behavior, interpersonal
relationships, work and community environments, policy changes, and
other indicators of social change.
An intergroup dialogue research compendium would catalog whether,
how, and by whom data about these and other variables have been
collected and analyzed. Research methods and measurement tools that span
the qualitative--quantitative continuum would be described, validity and
reliability statistics would be reported, and relative strengths and
limitations would be critiqued. Such methods and tools would cover the
gamut of appropriate options, including focus groups; participant, wait
list, and comparison groups; external consultant program evaluation;
action research; participant surveys, exercises, and essays; pre- and
posttest, cross-sectional, quasi-, and experimental designs; and
cross-sectional to longitudinal timeframe designs (Hardiman &
Jackson, 2005; Houle & Roberts, 2000; Stephan & Stephan, 2001).
Second, the overall rigor of methods used to assess intergroup
dialogue, regardless of community-based or academic setting, must be
improved. Anecdotal reports, broadly defined interview processes, and
nonsystematic observation are the reported basis for claims to positive
outcomes in many cases (Khuri, 2004; McCoy & Scully, 2002; Schatz,
Furman, & Jenkins, 2003). The value of in-depth, context-rich
qualitative information is not to be discounted, yet the limitations of
such information with regard to, for example, generalizability and
replicability of applications and outcomes must be made clear and
critiqued explicitly. Other studies, such as the MELD and Canadian
Policy Research Network applications, describe the use of
cross-sectional self-report surveys and focus groups, yet may not
specify risks associated with sampling issues, social desirability
response, or other serious threats to the validity and reliability of
their results (Alvarez & Cabbil, 2001; Saxena, 2003). Claims of
successful outcomes, without specification of study limitations and
suggestions as to how to improve research that follows, at best present
an incomplete picture of the results and may promote the use of
misdirected interventions.
Research on intergroup dialogue that uses stringent quantitative
assessments with pre and post measures of knowledge, attitude, and
behavioral change; control groups; other elements of quasi-and
experimental designs; longitudinal timeframes; and more sophisticated
statistical analysis procedures is not yet reported widely but is
expanding (Gurin et al., 2002; Nagda, Kim, &Truelove, 2004). To
date, these more sophisticated assessments have occurred in academic
settings. One important challenge for some of these more complex studies
is separating the effects of intergroup dialogue from other
interventions used to promote multicultural understanding and social
change (Hurtado, 2005). The University of Michigan's
multi-university study of intergroup student dialogues on race and
gender is moving beyond the norm of case studies and exploration of
cognitive outcomes to longitudinal, qualitative, and quantitative
assessments of often neglected factors, such as participant
self-selection, process (that is, event duration, ground rules,
facilitation techniques), and postdialogue action (Hardiman &
Jackson, 2005).
Qualitative approaches to intergroup dialogue evaluation can reach
higher levels of sophistication and insight with greater use of
techniques such as interrater training, systematic observation, and
content analysis (Stephan & Stephan, 2001). From our viewpoint,
intergroup dialogue assessments would benefit best from carefully
thought out mixed qualitative-quantitative designs that enrich
understanding of this phenomenon from aggregate and in-depth
perspectives.
Third, research on the efficacy of intergroup dialogue in
not-for-profit or community-based settings must be expanded to evaluate
it more fully as a means of achieving social justice and change. In
community-based settings, perhaps the first challenge is to persuade
practitioners to collect data in the many settings and configurations in
which intergroup dialogue occurs. Practitioner and participant buy-in to
the benefits of evaluation is a challenge in many practice settings.
Social workers can contribute to intergroup dialogue work by
familiarizing themselves and other community-based practitioners with
evaluative tools and assisting in their implementation and analysis. A
rigorously researched intergroup dialogue evaluation compendium as
described earlier, particularly if available in a public forum such as
the Internet, would help practitioners choose appropriate and feasible
evaluation tools and disseminate new information and research findings.
A commitment on the part of not-for-profit institutes and centers to
establishing comprehensive evaluation processes could signal a turning
point in this regard. The key is combining a participatory research
approach to engaging stakeholders in dialogue in the development of
goals and evaluation with quantitative methods that assess relevant
findings to processes and outcomes.
The fourth aspect of research emphasized here is understanding the
experiences of oppressed groups in intergroup dialogue. Crucial outcome,
design, and implementation issues such as reported by Abu-Nimer (1999)
and Suleiman (2004) emphasize the ongoing need for in-depth assessment
of power differentials between dominant and nondominant groups. That is,
can dialogue level the playing field, and if so, under what conditions?
If not, what are the ethical implications of using an intervention that
may at best reinforce the status quo? What might we learn through
comparison of the structure and dynamics of intergroup dialogue with
related interventions such as multicultural education, conflict
resolution, and workplace diversity initiatives (Stephan & Stephan,
2001)? At a fundamental level, is intergroup dialogue itself a
culture-bound intervention that favors dominant groups, and if so, what
alternatives should be studied?
A similar ethical issue arises from research that suggests that
dominant group members (that is, white college students) may profit more
consistently from intergroup dialogue than nondominant group members
(that is, African American college students) (Gurin et al., 2002; Miller
& Donner, 2000). What ethical issues arise when members of
traditionally oppressed groups find themselves placed in the position of
educating dominant group members? Can dialogue succeed when one group
seeks action and the other, knowledge, and if so, how? To address these
issues, Gurin and associates, Miller and Donner, and others referenced
in this article recommend facilitation methods that foster interpersonal
and intercultural communication, address political context, encourage
group identity and cohesiveness, and provide historical information on
status and power differentials. These concerns are not new to
researchers in intergroup dialogue, or in closely related areas such as
multicultural responsiveness and competence initiatives. They continue
to be, however, central issues of concern with which to reckon.
FINAL THOUGHTS
Intergroup dialogue work has the characteristics of an intervention
that can be a point of convergence and common purpose for social workers
in clinical, other direct practice, organizer, activist, and other roles
across the micro-macro spectrum. This intervention combines
psychological and relational insight with principles of empowerment,
social justice, and diversity and a holistic recognition of multiple
truths (Pearlmutter, 2002). It has the potential to bring individuals
and communities together, help them identify social problems, and lead
to social action. It is consonant with social work in its
interdisciplinary theoretical base and practice. Through their own
efforts and in concert with others, social work practitioners can use
intergroup dialogue to synthesize clinical-direct practice and community
organizing-activist skills to promote social change.
The working definition of social work practice established by the
Commission of Social Work Practice in 1956 identified the purposes of
social work as identifying potential areas of disequihbria among
individuals or groups, helping to resolve problems that arise out of
such social instability, and seeking out the maximum potential in
individuals, groups, and communities (Gibelman, 1999). Today, we
continue to strive toward our professional mandate to improve individual
and societal well-being, particularly for and with those who are most
vulnerable, oppressed, and constrained by environmental forces. Through
intergroup dialogue, we can test in yet another venue how to bring
social work knowledge of the inner and relational world to bear on
community practice to achieve the internal and external transformations
that lead to social justice and change.
Original manuscript received July 15. 2005 Final revision received
January 3, 2006 Accepted April 27, 2006
REFERENCES
Abu-Nimer, M. (1999). Dialogue, conflict resolution, and change:
Arab-Jewish Encounters in Israel. Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Abu-Nimer, M. (2004). Education for coexistence and Arab-Jewish
encounters in Israel: Potential and challenges. Journal of Social
Issues, 60, 405-422.
Agbaria, F., & Cohen, C. (2002). Working with groups in
conflict: The impact of power relations on the dynamics of the group.
Waltham, MA: Brandeis University, The International Center for Ethics,
Justice and Public Life.
Alatar, M., Smith, M., & Umbreit, M. (2004). National survey of
Arab-Palestinian-Jewish dialogue groups. St. Paul: University of
Minnesota, School of Social Work, The Center for Restorative Justice and
Peacemaking.
Alvarez, A. R., & Cabbil, L. (2001). The MELD program:
Promoting personal change and social justice through a year-long
multicultural group experience. Social Work with Groups, 24(1), 3-20.
Bohm, D. (1992). Changing consciousness: Exploring the hidden
source of the social, political, and environmental crises facing our
world. San Francisco: Harper.
Bohm, D. (1996). On dialogue. In D. Bohm, On dialogue (pp. 1-47; L.
Nichol, Ed.). New York: Routledge.
Chasin, R., Herzig, M., Roth, S., Chasin, L., Becker, C., &
Stains, R. R., Jr. (1996). From diatribe to dialogue on divisive public
issues: Approaches drawn from family therapy. Mediation Quarterly, 13,
1-19.
Cissna, K. N., & Anderson, R. (2002). Moments of meeting:
Buber, Rogers, & the potential for public dialogue. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Dessel, A., Garlington, S., & Rogge, M. E. (2005). Conflict
resolution and social change: The convergence of professional social
work identity in the practice of public dialogue. Retrieved July 14,
2006, from http://www.acosa.org/bibliographies.html
Dewees, M. (2002). Contested landscape: The role of critical
dialogue for social workers in mental health practice. Journal of
Progressive Human Services, 13(1), 73-91.
Gibelman, M. (1999). The search for identity: Defining social
work--Past, present, future. Social Work, 44, 298-310.
Gurin, P., Dey, E., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity
and higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard
Educational Review, 72, 330-366.
Hardiman, R., & Jackson, B. (2005). Experiments in diverse
democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Program on Intergroup
Relations. Retrieved April 28, 2005, from http://www.umich.edu/~igrc/
Houle, K., & Roberts, R. (2000). Toward competent communities:
Best practices for producing community-wide study circles. Lexington,
KY: Topsfield Foundation, Inc./Study Circles Resource Center.
Hurtado, S. (2005). The next generation of diversity and intergroup
relations research. Journal of Social Issues, 61, 595-610.
Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue and the art of thinking together: A
pioneering approach to communicating in business and in life. New York:
Currency.
Khaminwa, A. M., & Sadeghi, S. (2003). Creating a culture of
conversation: Reflections on the methodology of dialogue (part of the
Building Coexistence Project). New York: The Coexistence Initiative
& The Institute on the Common Good.
Khuri, M. L. (2004). Facilitating Arab--Jewish intergroup dialogue
in the college setting. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 7, 229-250.
Kuttab, J., & Kaufman, E. (1988, Winter). An exchange on
dialogue. Journal of Palestine Studies, 17(66), 84-108.
McCoy, M. L., & Scully, P. L. (2002). Deliberative dialogue to
expand civic engagement: What kind of talk does democracy need? National
Civic Review, 91, 117-135.
Miller, J, & Donner, S. (2000). More than just talk: The use of
racial dialogues to combat racism. Social Work with Groups, 23(1),
31-53.
Nagda, B. A., Kim, C., & Truelove, Y. (2004). Learning about
difference, learning with others, learning to transgress. Journal of
Social Issues, 60, 195-214.
Nagda, B. A., Spearmon, M. L., Holley, L. C., Harding, S.,
Balassone, M. L., Moise-Swanson, D., & de Mello, S. (1999).
Intergroup dialogues: An innovative approach to teaching about diversity
and justice in social work programs. Journal of Social Work Education,
35, 433-449.
Nagda, B. A., & Zuniga, X. (2003). Fostering meaningful racial
engagement through intergroup dialogues. Group Processes and Intergroup
Relations, 6, 111-128.
Norman, A. J. (1991). The use of the group and group work
techniques in resolving interethnic conflict. Social Work with Groups,
14(3/4), 175-86.
Pearce, W. B., & Pearce, K. A. (2004). Taking a communication
approach to dialogue. In R. Anderson, L. A. Baxter, & K. N. Cissna
(Eds.), Dialogue: Theorizing difference in communication (pp. 39-56).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pearlmutter, S. (2002). Achieving political practice: Integrating
individual need and social action. Journal of Progressive Human
Services, 13(1), 31-51.
Pharr, S. (1996). In the time of the right: Reflections on
liberation. Berkeley, CA: Chardon Press.
Public Conversations Project. (2005, May). Constructive
conversations that reach across differences. Retrieved May 16, 2005,
from http://www.publicconversations.org/pcp/index.asp
Saxena, N. (2003). Citizens' dialogue experience: Follow-up
survey results. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks, Public
Involvement Network. Retrieved November 4, 2004, from
http://www.cprn.org/en/ doc.cfm?doc=401
Schatz, M., Furman, R., & Jenkins, L. E. (2003). Space to grow:
Using dialogue techniques for multinational, multicultural learning.
International Social Work, 46, 481-494.
Schoem, D. (2003). Intergroup dialogue for a just and diverse
democracy. Sociological Inquiry, 73, 212-227.
Schoem, D., & Hurtado, S. (Eds.). (2001). Intergroup dialogue:
Deliberative democracy in school, college, community, and workplace. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Seitz, V., Hansen, L., Rogers, S., Lartson, E., & Hundley, J.
(Eds.). (2002). Knoxville's Empowerment Zone--Zone Advisory
Councils concept plan: A vision for empowerment. Knoxville, TN: The
Center for Neighborhood Development & the University of Tennessee
Community Partnership Center.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the
learning organization. New York: Currency.
Shot, I., & Friere, P. (1987). A pedagogy for liberation:
Dialogue on transforming education. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Specht, H., & Courtney, M. E. (1994). Unfaithful angels: How
social work has abandoned its mission. New York: Free Press.
Spencer, M. (2004). Social work 709: Training in intergroup
dialogue facilitation: Skills for multicultural social work practice.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, School of Social Work. Retrieved
February 16, 2005, from www.ssw.umich.edu/shared/course_outlines/
20052/ms709-001f04.pdf
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2001). Improving intergroup
relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Study Circles Resource Center. (2005). Who we are. Retrieved
February 11, 2005, from
http://www.studycircles.org/en/Page.WhoWeAre.aspx
Suleiman, R. (2004). Planned encounters between Jewish and
Palestinian Israelis: A social-psychological perspective. Journal of
Social Issues, 60, 323-337.
Tannen, D. (1998). The argument culture. New York: Random House.
Zubizaretta, R. (2002). Dynamic facilitation: An exploration of
deliberative democracy, organizational development and educational
theory as tools for social change. Unpublished master's thesis,
Sonoma State University. Retrieved June 4, 2004, from
www.sonoma.edu/users/s/ smithh/odlibrary/pdf%20files/zubizarretar.pdf
Adrienne Dessel, MSW, LCSW, is a doctoral student, College of
Social Work, University of Tennessee, Henson Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996;
e-mail: adessel@utk.edu. Mary E. Rogge, PhD, is associate professor,
College of Social Work, University of Tennessee. Sarah B. Garlington,
MSSW, is TEAMUP TN coordinator, University of Tennessee Extension
Service.
Table 1: Not-for-Profit or Community-Based
Intergroup Dialogue Institutes and Centers
Issue Entity Web Site
Multi-issue National Coalition for http://www.thataway.
collaboration, Dialogue and Deliberation org
practice, and National Issues Forums http://www.nifi.org
resource centers Western Justice Center http://www.western
Foundation justice.org/
Abortion, Public Conversations http://www.public
interfaith issues, Project conversations.org/
environment pcp/index.asp
Diversity, National Conference for http://www.nccj.org/
interfaith issues Community and Justice
Education Educators for Social http://www.esr
Responsibility national.org/
home.htm
Community Utne Reader Neighborhood http://www.utne.com/
conflict Salon salons
resolution, Public Dialogue http://www.public
environment, Consortium dialogue.org
racism, and
diversity
Mental health Taos Institute http://www.taos
communication Center for Nonviolent institute.net
Communication http://www.cnvc.org
Organizational International Institute http://www.sustained
communication, for Sustained Dialogue dialogue.org
international Search for Common Ground http://www.sfcg.org/
ethnic conflict sfcg/sfcg_home.html
Issue Reference
Multi-issue Schoem & Hurtado
collaboration, (2001)
practice, and
resource centers
Abortion, Khaminwa &
interfaith issues, Sadeghi (2003)
environment
Diversity, Nagda et al. (1999),
interfaith issues Khaminwa &
Sadeghi (2003)
Education Khaminwa &
Sadeghi (2003)
Community Khaminwa &
conflict Sadeghi (2003)
resolution, Pearce & Pearce
environment, (2004)
racism, and
diversity
Mental health Khaminwa &
communication Sadeghi (2003)
Organizational Khaminwa &
communication, Sadeghi (2003)
international
ethnic conflict
Table 2: Academic-Based Intergroup Dialogue Centers
Center University
Program on Intergroup Relations University of Michigan
Intergroup Dialogue, Education, University of Washington
and Action (IDEA) Center School of Social Work
Words of Engagement University of Maryland
Program on Intergroup Relations University of Illinois
Urbana-Champaign
Intergroup Dialogue Program Occidental College
Social Justice Education University of Massachusetts,
Amherst
Intergroup Dialogue Syracuse University
Inrergroup Relations Center Arizona State University
Center Web Site
Program on Intergroup Relations http://www.umich.edu/-igrc/
Intergroup Dialogue, Education, http://depts.washington.edu/sswweb/
and Action (IDEA) Center idea/
Words of Engagement http://www.ohrp.umd.edu/WE/
Program on Intergroup Relations http://www.intergrouprelations.
uiuc.edu/
Intergroup Dialogue Program http://departments.oxy.edu/dialogue/
Social Justice Education http://www.umass.edu/sje/
Intergroup Dialogue http://cstl.syr.edu/intergroup
dialogue/
Inrergroup Relations Center http://www.asu.edu/provost/
intergroup/