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

9. Evidence, Criticisms, and Conclusions for Practice, Theory, and Research

chAPTER 9 Evidence, Criticisms, and Conclusions for Practice, Theory, and Research The preceding chapters in this book have articulated the rationale for intergroup dialogue (IGD) in higher education and in our society, the overall methodology of the study, and the practice and theoretical foundations of a critical-dialogic model of intergroup dialogue. Chapters reporting on the quantitative and qualitative investigation undertaken in the Multi-University Intergroup Dialogue Research (MIGR) Project addressed both the impact of intergroup dialogue and the mechanisms of change in intergroup dialogue. In respect to impact, we have shown that intergroup dialogue increases students ’ intergroup understanding, strengthens positive intergroup relationships , and enhances commitment to intergroup action and collaboration. In respect to the mechanisms of change, we have shown how the pedagogy of intergroup dialogue works directly and indirectly through the communication processes and psychological processes to affect the outcomes of interest. The quantitative results on outcomes and processes support our theoretical model. The qualitative investigation of engagement and empathy provides a nuanced understanding of the ways in which students experience and understand the important processes and outcomes in intergroup dialogue. The intensive qualitative videotaping study provides confirmatory behavioral evidence for the IGD practice model. In this chapter and the next, we look back 284 DIALOGUE ACROSS DIFFERENCE to move forward. In this chapter specifically, we return to the practice and theoretical foundations of intergroup dialogue (chapters 2 and 3) from the perspective of the empirical evidence of this study. suPPoRT foR ThE PRAcTIcE AND ThEoRETIcAl MoDEl The terms dialogue and dialogue across differences have become common parlance in a broad range of educational and community-based or organizational and policy projects that attempt to open discussion of different perspectives . Dialogue by itself evokes images of openness and engagement. Dialogue across differences evokes images of divergent perspectives held by people of diverse backgrounds brought into interactions with one another. In our conceptualization of intergroup dialogue, we referred to a specific model of dialoguing across and about differences—a critical-dialogic model of intergroup dialogue. We have applied that conceptualization in this study of engaging race and gender. The dialogic component emphasizes the centrality of building relationships across differences. These relationships are interpersonal in that they are built on sharing thoughts, experiences, and feelings with others . More important, however, these relationships are also intergroup because IGD intentionally brings different social identity groups together for students to have group-based interactions. This is not to say that students are confined to their identity groups but that their identity is engaged as an important lens for self- and other-understanding. The critical component addresses dialogue about differences, especially understanding the differences of identity that are contextualized in systems of power and privilege as well as in mutual responsibilities for individual and social change. The critical component not only involves race-ethnicity and gender, but also and in particular examines how they involve systemic racial-ethnic and gender inequalities and how interracial-interethnic and cross-gender collaborations for social justice can be achieved. Together, the critical-dialogic nature of intergroup dialogue allows for personalized and contextualized conversations about identities and inequalities while building relationships across these very kinds of difference. The critical-dialogic nature of intergroup dialogue guides those social relationships to be considered in the context of power and privilege. A white man in a race-ethnicity dialogue underscores this intentionality in structuring the intergroup collaborative projects (ICPs): “This strategy served as a catalyst to take us out of our comfort zones. It showed us how working across EVIDENCE, CRITICISMS, AND CONCLUSIONS 285 differences could lead to common ground.” Even when students collaborate on projects, a critical analysis is brought to bear in understanding the dynamics of power and privilege that emerge in collaboration and working toward equality both inside and outside the dialogue setting. Critical-dialogic IGD is fundamentally about social change; it does not rest simply in opposition to what is, but has to be coupled with visions and experiments in collaboration for what is possible. The quantitative and qualitative investigation in this study provides strong support for the practice model and theoretical framework of critical-dialogic intergroup dialogue as a distinctive approach to intergroup contact and multicultural education. As discussed in chapter 2, IGD integrates the core elements of diversity education on human relationships and the core elements of social justice education on critical consciousness. Furthermore, the study supports the importance of personal, intimate, positive intergroup...