Evaluation of Intergroup Dialogue.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Evaluation of Intergroup Dialogue: A Review of the Empirical Literature ADRIENNE DESSEL MARY E. ROGGE Practitioners in the developing field of intergroup dialogue seek to address critical social issues of prejudice and intergroup conflict. Goals of dialogue work include relationship building, civic participation, and social change. Outcome evaluation of this work is necessary to fur- ther understand the processes and effectiveness of dialogue practices, improve on the work being done, and obtain funding. This literature review summarizes empirical evaluation research in the field of inter- group dialogue and presents a compendium table. Strengths and limi- tations of current research are discussed, with emphasis on the importance of expanding evaluation work in this field. ntergroup conflict tears at the fabric of society in numerous ways. IWhether based in prejudice, social identity, emotions, ideology, values, communication styles, or resources, human beings tend to be attached to their beliefs, categorize and stereotype others into “outgroups,” and dominate others in a way that often leads to violence (Collier and Sambanis, 2002; Dovidio, 2001; LeBaron and Carstarphen, 1997; Lowry and Littlejohn, 2006; Maiese, 2006; Maoz, 2001; Spears, 2000; Staub, 2007; Weiner, 1998). Although aggression and interethnic conflict are assumed to be natural inclinations of human nature, the desire for har- mony and peace balances these tendencies (Hamburg, 1998). The field of conflict resolution has arisen in response to this aspiration. Profes- sionals involved in the field have a promising tool in intergroup dialogue, one that is at their disposal to be used to address the aforementioned CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY, vol. 26, no. 2, Winter 2008 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 199 and the Association for Conflict Resolution • DOI: 10.1002/crq.230 200 DESSEL, ROGGE societal rifts. This method requires more attention and evaluation as to its potential. Dialogue as a process of human interaction and conflict resolution is an age-old yet still-evolving practice. An early form of dialogue was the Socratic method of sustained questioning and engaging participants in for- mulating their own theories about how the world works. Socrates’ student Plato wrote “dialogues” that, although situated within a rhetorical tradition of using language to persuade, have been reinterpreted as techniques applied to situations of inequality and conflict (Zappen, 1996). Plato’s dia- logues initiated a practice whereby people determined their own answers to questions of concern while engaging in creation of shared meaning and understanding. The contemporary practice of intergroup dialogue has a wide purview, ranging from academic to global arenas (Nagda, Kim, and Truelove, 2004; Pruitt and Kaufer, 2004). Nagda and colleagues are currently engaged in a multiuniversity study examining the outcomes of race and gender inter- group dialogues for student populations (Nagda, Gurin, and Zuniga, 2008). The United Nations Democratic Dialogue Project is bringing together ethnic groups steeped in long-standing conflict who are beginning to see each other as individuals (UNDP, 2008). With increased attention being paid to the practice of dialogue, questions should be raised about what effect this approach has on participants and whether and how dialogue achieves desired goals. Practitioners and researchers in the developing field of intergroup dialogue have produced an important body of literature and, more recently, have begun to evaluate the outcomes of such work (Gurin, Peng, Lopez, and Nagda, 1999; Hurtado, 2005; McCoy and McCormick, 2001; Nagda, 2006; Nagda, Kim, and Truelove, 2004; Nagda and Zuniga, 2003; Zuniga, Nagda, Chesler, and Cytron-Walker, 2007). In community, organizational, and interethnic settings, however, use of dia- logue techniques has far outpaced any systematic efforts to measure the results of dialogue interaction. Further rigorous evaluation of intergroup dialogue is critical to understand the processes and outcomes involved in dialogue and to improve on the work (Dessel, Rogge, and Garlington, 2006; Hurtado, 2001; Khuri, 2004a; Nagda and Derr, 2004; Pruitt and Kaufer, 2004; Schoem and Hurtado, 2001; Stephan and Stephan, 2001). Attending to outcomes creates varied reactions and sometimes resistance within the practitioner community. As McCoy and McCormick (2001) pointed out, evaluation of practices or programs calls into explicit and observable question how success can be defined and determined. There is CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq Evaluation of Intergroup Dialogue 201 an ongoing debate among dialogue researchers and practitioners as well about the value of assessing process or product in dialogue and the degree to which reality can be objectively measured (Abelson and others, 2003; WSP/UNDP-DRLAC, 2003). It is also important to recognize that incor- porating outcome research into community-based dialogue practice can be time-consuming and expensive and is not often supported by funding. However, outcome evaluation is a necessary component of dialogue practice to assess its effectiveness, improve on outcomes, and obtain finan- cial support. Practitioners and academicians interested in understanding dialogic processes and outcomes face a number of challenges that are dis- cussed in this article. Evaluators of intergroup dialogue must first define indicator variables of successful process and outcomes. Research methods and designs must be developed to measure these variables. Outcome mea- surement tools and program evaluation methods are important pieces of the puzzle as to whether and how dialogue may foster interpersonal and social change. A compendium of dialogue evaluation methods and tools will increase the potential to replicate and improve on current research knowledge (Rubin and Babbie, 2005). Such improvements will strengthen and promote intergroup dialogue in various public settings. This article reviews the empirical literature on intergroup dialogue outcomes. First, we offer a definition of intergroup dialogue work as it is conducted in academic, community, and international venues. Next, we discuss the theoretical underpinnings of intergroup dialogue work. Then we review existing studies located between the years 1997 and 2006. We discuss summaries of design, methodology, sample, research questions, data collection tools, variables, and outcomes. A com- pendium table for comparison of studies is provided (Table 1). Conclu- sions from this literature review inform future directions for evaluation of intergroup dialogue. Intergroup Dialogue Defined As previously noted, intergroup dialogue has its roots in Western culture and the attempt to revive ancient conversational patterns and bridge the gap between individual and collective consciousness (Bohm, 1996; Slotte, 2006). Intergroup dialogue is a facilitated group experience that may occur once or may be sustained over time and is designed to give individuals and groups a safe and structured opportunity to explore attitudes about polar- izing societal issues. Participants are encouraged to suspend assumptions, CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq Table 1. Intergroup Dialogue Evaluation Compendium Research Question Data Collection Author Design Sample and Goals Techniques Variables Outcomes Abu-Nimer, 1999 Pre-experimental 170 citizens 1. Program evaluation Nonstructured • Examine the impact of • Changes in individuals, perceptions 2. Impact of coexistence pro- interviews coexistence programs that of each other and the conflict grams that include dialogue include dialogue on peace- • Cultural acquaintance—knowing on peaceful and equal rela- ful and equal relations each other personally and culturally tions between Arabs and Jews between Arabs and Jews in • Raised awareness of Arab-Jewish in Israel Israel relations in Israel 3. Identify patterns in types of • Identify patterns in types • Had a good personal experience of goals, structure, desired impact of goals, structure, desired Arab-Jewish interaction impact, philosophy, and 4. Philosophy and limitations limitations of programs of programs • Identify major changes in 5. Identify major changes in programs over time, impact programs over time, impact of of political events on pro- political events on programs grams, changes needed to 6. Changes needed to increase increase effectiveness effectiveness DeTurk, 2006 Pre-experimental 45 citizens in 1. What are the effects of Participant observation • Participant consciousness • Increased perspective-taking, municipal intergroup dialogue on Phenomenological • Communicative action awareness, and complex thinking intergroup participants’ consciousness interviews about diversity dialogue and communicative action? Focus group, tape • Increased confidence with inter- program recorded group interaction and communication • Increased self-efficacy and commit- ment to action in the interest of social justice • Reduction of stereotypes and prejudice • Increased appreciation for “isms” and structural power relations • Experience of having one’s voice validated • Alliance building Diez-Pinto, 2004 Pre-experimental 15 1. Promote trust Tape-recorded quali- • Promote trust • Breakdown of stereotypes and 2. Generate long-term tative interviews • Generate long-term facilitation of personal relationships national agenda supported by Observation national agenda supported Peace Accords by Peace Accords Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, Pre-experimental Michigan 1. Discern differences and Pre- and posttest Learning outcomes: