Intergroup Dialogues: An Educational Model for Cultivating Engagement Across Differences

Zúñiga, Ximena; Naagda, Biren A.; Sevig, Todd D.

doi:10.1080/713845248

Cited by 134 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These traditions gave rise to the democratic, experiential education, and intergroup education movements of the last century (McGee Banks, 2005;Stephan and Stephan, 2001;Zúñiga, Nagda, and Sevig, 2002). Dialogue as a communication practice has been used in many cultural and discourse traditions to support inquiry and explore shared concerns.…”

Section: Historical Roots Of and Contemporary Influences On Intergroumentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Moreover, both individuals and groups of participants often have different levels of knowledge and awareness about their own and other social identity groups and readiness to actively engage issues of social identity affiliation (Zúñiga, Vasques-Scalera, Sevig, and Nagda, 1996). For example, participants from privileged social identity groups typically report knowing less about the ramifications or impact of their own group membership on others than do people of disadvantaged groups (Zúñiga, Nagda, and Sevig, 2002).…”

Section: Developing Personal and Social Identity Awarenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Content typically refers to concepts, conceptual frameworks, literature, theory, empirical data, and personal stories that challenge assumptions or misinformation or stimulate questions, reflections, observations, or new behaviors (Beale and Schoem, 2001;Zúñiga, Nagda, and Sevig, 2002). Process, on the other hand, refers to the intrapersonal and interpersonal reactions, interactions, and reflections stimulated by experiential learning or exploration of controversial issues or hot topics such as immigration, reproductive rights, gay marriage and civil unions, and affirmative action.…”

Section: Explicit Attention To Content and Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

2007

ASHE Higher Education Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(see Schoem and Hurtado, 2001, for descriptions of selected programs).Intergroup dialogue brings together twelve to eighteen people from two or more social identity groups: men and women; white people, biracial/ multiracial/ethnic people, and people of color; blacks, Latinos/as, and Native Americans; Arabs and Jews; lesbians, gay men, bisexual and heterosexual people; people from working-, middle-, and upper-socioeconomic class backgrounds; and Christians, Muslims, and Jews. These meetings are supported and guided by a skilled team of cofacilitators that use an educational curriculum integrating cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions of learning. The cofacilitators are chosen to reflect the composition of the dialogue; for example, a dialogue involving men and women would have one male and one female cofacilitator.Intergroup dialogue is marked by its critical-dialogic approach to exploring commonalities and differences in and between social identity groups, its reliance on sustained communication and involvement to bridge differences and move participants to deeper and more meaningful levels of engagement, and its intergroup focus. By recognizing the centrality of social group affiliation based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and other socially constructed categories, intergroup dialogue fosters a critical examination of the impact of power relations and social inequality on intergroup relations (Nagda and others, 1999;Zúñiga and Nagda, 2001).Intergroup dialogue is grounded in the assumptions that interpersonal and cross-group relations on campus are affected by the histories and current realities of intergroup conflict in the United States and that these conflicts must be explored through dialogic encounters. In contrast to "banking" approaches to diversity education in which the teacher-expert deposits knowledge into students as if they were empty vessels waiting to be filled (Freire, 1970), dialogic interaction promotes active, generative, and transformative connections 3 Intergroup Dialogue in Higher Educationand explorations among participants and between participants and facilitators. Intergroup dialogue recognizes the importance of listening and speaking honestly and openly to encourage shared meaning and improved interpersonal communication and relationships (Ellinor and Gerard, 1998;Weiler, 1994).Communication flows in many directions as thoughts and feelings are shared and questions and issues are posed for everyone to consider. Dialogue involves "periods of lots of noise as people share and lots of silence as people muse" (Wink, 2005, p. 41). Different from "mere talk" or casual conversations, dialogue is an intentional, facilitated process that has a focus and a purpose (Brookfield and Preskill, 2005;Chesler, Lewis, and Crowfoot, 2005;Romney, 2003). Dialogue differs from debate, where one party tries to convince the other party (or an audience) of the correctness of his or her own position as well as the incorrectness of the other position. Dialogue, unlike debate, builds a r...

show abstract

Section: Historical Roots Of and Contemporary Influences On Intergroumentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Developing Personal and Social Identity Awarenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Explicit Attention To Content and Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

2007

ASHE Higher Education Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In recent years, the proliferation of dialogue across knowledge disciplines (Stewart, Zediker, and Black 2004) is also reflected in the growth of dialogue within the field of higher education, including among others, university and college education (Arnett 1992;Gunnlaugson 2004Gunnlaugson , 2006, dialogue pedagogy (Freire 1990;Burbules 1993), cohort education (Lawrence 2002), teacher training (Darling 2001), intergroup dialogue (Zúñiga, Nagda, and Zevig 2002), consciousness development in learning communities (Watts, Miller, and Kloepfer 1999;Mitchell and Sackney 2001), and workplace learning (Laiken 1997). Alongside the different forms of dialogue education existing within the field of higher education, we are interested in expanding upon how our particular approaches to dialogue can support the emergence of transformative learning (Moore 2005;Gunnlaugson 2006Gunnlaugson , 2007 in university classrooms.…”

Section: Dialogue Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dialogue education in the post‐secondary classroom: reflecting on dialogue processes from two higher education settings in North America

Gunnlaugson

Moore

2009

Journal of Further and Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…programs that are composed of many elements (Zuñiga et al, 2002). Here we 23 demonstrate that scientific experiments, using randomized controlled designs and 1 quantitative outcome measures, can be used to evaluate which aspects of conflict 2 resolution programs are most effective for the different groups involved.…”

Section: Conclusion 11mentioning

confidence: 99%