Dialogue Across Difference: Practice, Theory, and Research on Intergroup Dialogue

4. Studying Intergroup Dialogue: Using Mixed Methods

chAPTER 4 Studying Intergroup Dialogue: Using Mixed Methods In the previous two chapters, we described the practice and theoretical models that guided the intergroup dialogue (IGD) courses investigated in this project. The practice model involves an interactive pedagogy implemented across four stages. The theoretical model posits that dialogue pedagogy leads to distinctive communication processes that form the heart of intergroup dialogue . Two of these processes, which we call dialogic, focus on personal sharing of experiences and beliefs and on taking risks by disclosing uncertainties and feelings (engaging self) as well as listening and inquiry about the ideas and experiences of other members of the dialogue (appreciating difference ). Two other processes, which we call critical, focus on sharing and reflecting on power and privilege by discussing how socialization and social stratification have operated in their lives (critical reflection) as well as on discerning both commonalities and differences that can be leveraged into collaborative relationships (alliance building). These four processes promote changes that take place within individual participants. Some of these changes involve cognition, specifically increased analytical thinking about society, greater consideration of multiple points of view, more complex thinking, and increased involvement in identity. Other changes involve emotions, including more positive interactions across difference and more positive emotions when such interactions occur. Pedagogy, communication processes, and psy- 126 DIALOGUE ACROSS DIFFERENCE chological processes together are expected to produce increased intergroup understanding, empathy, and action—the three sets of predicted effects of intergroup dialogue. The objective of the multi-university study (MIGR) was to see whether these effects occurred and how the communications that take place among dialogue participants and the psychological processes that take place within the participants might account for the effects. In this chapter, we present the research methods used to address this objective. We needed a research design that would ensure that whatever effects we found could be attributed to participation in a dialogue rather than to changes over an academic term that the students might have undergone had they not been in an intergroup dialogue course. We needed statistically rigorous methods to test for both effects and explanations for them. We also wanted to explore how students participated in dialogue and how they talked and wrote about their dialogue experiences , a goal that called for qualitative methods as well as quantitative methods. This chapter describes the standardized curriculum that comprised the intervention being assessed in the MIGR project, the research design and methods used to assess effects, and the qualitative materials and analyses used to give a more nuanced understanding of what goes on in intergroup dialogue courses.1 REsEARch DEsIGN: sTANDARDIZED INTERvENTIoN The challenge was how to standardize the curriculum across the institutions to form the experimental intervention. To varying degrees, each of the nine participating institutions already had an IGD program in place. However, because the programs were not using identical curricula, initially we did not have an intervention that could be evaluated. The nine teams of collaborators worked together in face-to-face meetings to develop a uniform curriculum. Those meetings were themselves an IGD because various collaborators had to compromise and at times let go of strongly held commitments to a particular reading or activity or assignment. The collaborators had to share their perspectives and experiences using particular readings, in-class exercises, collective reflection activities, and writing assignments; they had to listen to and learn from each other to eventually agree upon a uniform curriculum comprised of the same content for each of the dialogue sessions, the same read- STUDYING INTERGROUP DIALOGUE 127 ings, the same in-class exercises, the same out-of-class project, and the same final paper assignment. These team meetings, which were crucial in setting a collaborative culture that continued over the five years of the project, helped ensure that all institutions were implementing the curriculum and following uniform research procedures. In addition, the primary investigator (Patricia Gurin) talked monthly with each institution’s primary collaborator to further ensure standardization of the intervention and research procedures. The one nonstandard feature was that some institutions were required to use faculty as facilitators, others had to use professional staff, and still others were allowed to use student peer facilitators. A uniform approach to facilitators was not possible, though the project did attempt to implement common training. This institutional variability is a limitation in the study. A Field Experiment: Dialogues and Control Groups An experimental design was created to test...