80 Group UOrkApproachesandMethods IntergroupDialogue: Overview 81 personal experience, which can educate dominant culture listeners but exploit the communication and relationships, and promote social change (Alvarez & Cabbil, speakers. Social workers must insure that intergroup dialogue adheres to the two 200 I; Miller & Donner, 2000; Rodenborg & Huynh, 2006). Dialogue is a process core values outlined in the StandardsJOrSocialUOrk PracticewithGroups:rigorously of exploring one's own perceptions, values, and experiences, and communicating respect the autonomy, worth, and dignity of each group participant and remem- them without either forcing them on others or conforming, as a way to create ber that the goal of the group is to create a socially just society (Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups, 2006). meaning between people (Bohm, 1992). Intergroup dialogue is a facilitated group experience that is designed to provide a safe space for participants to address divi- Documenting the effectiveness of intergroup dialogue through rigorous sive social issues (Dessel, Rogge, & Garlington, 2006). Intergroup dialogue may research is a second challenge. Initial effectiveness data have been anecdotal or incorporate learning or experiential material, and engages participants in listen- case examination. Research rigor should be improved and should examine inter- ing, speaking, reflecting on one's own views, and learning about the perspectives group dialogue's effectiveness for dominant and non-dominant participants, its of others (Herzig & Chasin, 2006). Such dialogue involves processes of apprecia- flexibility across multiple settings, and its limitations (Dessel et aI., 2006). tion of difference, engaging self, critical self-reflection, and alliance building References (Nagda, 2006). It may also address cultural differences and power imbalances. Group work pays close attention to participants' personal, cultural, and social

Allport,OriginallyG. W published(1979). Thein natwe1954. of prgudice(25th Anniversary ed.). Reading, IvIA: Addison-Wesley. identities and dialogues are often co-facilitated by trained facilitators who may represent the social or cultural identities of the groups involved (Brown & Mistry, Alvarez, A. R., & Cabbil, L. (2001). The MELD program: Promoting personal change and social 2005; Nagda, 2006). The development of group norms is also addressed through justice through a year-long multicultural group experience. Social UVrkwith Groups,24(1), 3-20. the use of established dialogue agreements (Alvarez & Cabbil, 200 I; Herzig & Association for the Advancement of Social work with Groups. (2006). StandardsjOr Social UVrkPractice with Groups.Retrieved August 14,2007 from http://www.aaswg.org/Standards/standards Chasin, 2006). Convening and facilitating intergroup dialogues combines the Bargal, D. (2004). Groups for reducing intergroup conflict. In C. 0. Garvin, 1. M. GUlierrez, & social work micro skills of critical self-analysis and relational engagement with M.J. Galinsky (Eds.), Handbook of socialwork withgroups (pp. 292-306). New York: Guilford Press. macro skillsof systemic and structural change (Dessel et aI., 2006). The practice of Brooks/Cole. Corey, M. S., & Corey, G. (2006). Processand practice with groups (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson intergroup dialogue builds upon both the interactional group work model that seeks common ground between individual and group needs (Gitterman & Shulman, Dessel, A., Rogge, M. E., & Garlington, S. B. (2006). Using group dialogue to promote social justice and change. SocialUbrk, 51(4), 303-315. 2005) and social action group work that promotes empowerment and social change (Breton, 1995). Nagda,ing B.to A,transgress.Kim, C.,Joumal& Truelove,tif Social/ssues,Y. (2004).60,195-214.Learning about difference, learning with others, learn- Social work with groups has a historical yet under recognized purpose of link- Nagda, B. A., Spearmon, M. L., Holley, 1. C., Harding, S., Balossone, M. 1., Moise-Swanson, D., & ing group work with social change (Alvarez & Cabbil, 2001). Intergroup dialogue De Mello, S. (1999). Intergroup dialogues: An innovative approach to teaching about diversity and justice in social work programs. JOllmaljOr HigherEducation,35(3), 433-449. is employed in academic, community, and international settings to address issues Pettigrew,T. E (1998).Intergroup contact theory.Annual&viewof Psychology,49, 65-86. such as racism, interethnic conflict, and civic participation (Dessel et aI., 2006). The National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation identified four primary Rodendialogue.borg, N.SocialA., &UVrkHuynh,witlz GroupJ;N. (2006).29(1), On27 44.overcoming segregation: Social work and intergroup intentions of dialogue: exploration, conflict transformation, decision making, and Schoem, D., Hurtado. S., Sevig, T., Chesler, 1\1.,& Sumida, S. H. (200]). Intergroup dialogue: Democracy collaborative action. The Public Conversations Project has identified goals of at workin theory and practice. In D. Schoem,&S. Hurtado (Eds.),/ntngrollpdialogue:Deliberativedell/oc- intergroup dialogue that include thoughtful speaking and listening before respond- roryin school,college,tOll/mulliry,alldworkplace.Ann Arbor,MI: Universityof MichiganPress. Zuniga, x., Nagda, B. A., & Sevig, 1: D. (2002). Intergroup dialogues: An educational mode] for ing, mutual recognition of the authenticity of others, an inquiring stance, and cultivating engagement across differences.EquiryandErcetlencein Education,35( I), 7-17. a sense of safety, security and trust (Herzig & Chasin, 2006). The United Nations Development Programme's (UNDP) Democratic Dialogue Prqject described the goals of their international dialogues as dealing with critical sociopolitical events, addressing challenges of the times, and promoting long-term change. Intergroup Dialogue: OverView Groups are a social microcosm of the larger society and successful intergroup AdrienneDessei contact has been shown to improve intergroup relationships (Brown & Mistry, 2005). Stages of group process inform how a group functions and illuminate the powerful effects of addressing private issues in a public setting (Drumm, 2006). Allport's (1954/1979) contact hypothesis stated that intergroup contact results in positive effects when four conditions are present: (I) equal group status within the Intergroup dialogue is all innovative and versatile non-therapeutic group work group encounter, (2) common goals (3) cooperative interactions; and (4) support approach that social worlprejudice and biased Brown, A., & Mistry, T. (2005). Group work with "mixed membership" groups: Issues of race and behavior. Furthermore, the provision of a safe and positive opportunity for inter- gender.SocialWorkwith GroupS,28(3/4), 133-148. actions between different groups may reduce the anxiety and negative attitudes Dasgupta, N., & Rivera, L. (2006). From automatic antigay prejudice to behavior: The moderating dominant groups have about marginalized groups. Members of non-dominant role of conscious beliefs about gender and behavioral control. }ournal of Personaliryand Social groups have also reported positive experiences from participating in intergroup Psychology,91(2), 268-280. Dessel, A., Rogge, M., & Garlington, S. (2006). Using intergroup dialogue to promote social justice education and dialogue. and change. Social Work,51(4), 303-315. . Interventions that seek to educate and promote self-reflection and empathy, Diez-Pinto,E. (2004). VisionGuatnnala1998-2000: Building bridgesof trust.New York:United Nations manipulate ingroup and outgroup perceptions, and facilitate intergroup contact Development Programme. RetrievedJuly 31,2006 from http:/ 1democraticdialoguenetwork.orgl and its impact on social identity roles and potential for cross-group friendships have documents/view.pl?s= 13;ss=;t=;Lid=263 been shown to achieve prejudice reduction through attitude change. Studies in aca- Drumm, K. (2006).The essentialpower of group work. SocialWorkwith Groups,29(2/3), 17-31. Gaertner, S., Dovidio, j., & Bachman, B. (1996). Revisitingthe contact hypothesis:The induction of demic settings have shown that dialogue participation has increased white students' a common ingroup identity. International}ournal of Intercultural Relations,20(3/4), 271-290. perspective taking and sense of commonality with students of color, political Gitterman, A., & Shulman, L. (2005).Mutualaidgroups,oulnerableandresilientpopulations,andthelift 'Jcte involvement, and views of differences as compatible with democracy. For students (3rd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press. of color, dialogue participation has been related to perceiving less intergroup divi- Herzig, M., & Chasin, L. (2006). Fosteringdialogueacrossdivides:A nuts and boltsguide.from the Public siveness and holding more positive views of conflict, as well as increased positive ConversationsPrqject. Retrieved June 10, 2006 from http://www.publicconversations.org/ relationships with white students (Nagda & Zuniga, 2003). Effects for all students jamsdownload.html Hurtado, S: (2005).The next generation of diversity and intergroup relations.}ournal of SocialIssues, have included learning about the perspectives of people from other social groups, 61(3), 595-610. valuing new viewpoints, understanding the impact of social group membership on Miller,j., & Donner, S. (2000).More than just talk:The use of racial dialoguesto combat racism. Social identity, gaining increased awareness of social inequalities, and developing analyti- Workwith Groups,23(1),31-53. cal problem-solving skills, leadership, and cultural awareness (Hurtado, 2005). Nagda, B. \2006). Breaking barriers, crossing borders, building bridges: Communication processes in intergroup dialogues. }ournal of SocialIssues,62(3),553-576. Results of dialogues in community and international settings have included break- Nagda, B. A., & Zuniga, X. (2003). Fostering meaningful racial engagement through intergroup dia- down of stereotypes, facilitation of personal relationships, the establishment of trust logues. GroupProcesses& IntergroupRelations,6(I), 111-128. and consensus building leading to critical social policy development, and commit- Pettigrew, T., & Tropp, L. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.}ournal of Personaliry ment to social change (Alvarez & Cabbil, 200 I; Diez-Pinto, 2004). andSocialPsychology,90(5),751-783. The first challenge is to contend with power differentials between majority Rodenborg, N., & Huynh, N. (2006). On overcoming segregation: Social work and intergroup dia- and marginalized groups. Group work practitioners must take into account logue. SocialWI1rkwith Groups,29(I), 27-44. inherent privilege and systemic imbalances of power, and their implications for intergroup relationships, when designing and facilitating intergroup dialogues (Brown & Mistry, 2005). The second task is to improve research on intergroup dialogue outcomes. This requires collaboration between dialogue practitioners Intergrou.p Dialogue: Principles and researchers, and support lor such work from funding sources. Improved Mona C. S. Schatz:. research might include studies that use representative samples and random assignment and discuss response rates, attrition and social desirability bias, the use of well-established dialogue intervention protocols and measurement instru- ments, and employment of rigorous qualitative analysis methods. The final Social group work plays a major role in building deeply meaningful and growth- challenge for intergroup dialogue is to expand its potential in both research and filled opportUnities for group members. Dialogue groupS, developed as a group practice in order to foster non-traditional means of resolving societal oppression, approach to promote meaningful group interaction, starts where the group mem- conflict and violence. bers are, letting the group develop from its own poiht of departure (Konokpa, Encyclopedia of Social Work with Groups

Edited by Alex Gitterlllan and Robert Sahnon

I~ ~~o~;~;n~~~up NEWYORKAND lONDON