Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 62, No. 3, 2006, pp. 553--576

Breaking Barriers, Crossing Borders, Building Bridges: Communication Processes in Intergroup Dialogues Biren (Ratnesh) A. Nagda∗ University of Washington, Seattle

Research in intergroup contact and intergroup education is increasingly focused on the psychological and pedagogical processes to explain the impact of interventions on desired outcomes. This emerging scholarship has enriched our understanding about what types of interventions are effective or not and how these interventions impact outcomes of prejudice reduction and social inclusion. In the present study, a new theoretical dimension of processes operating in intergroup contact and education is investigated: communication processes. Factor analyses of communication processes within an intergroup encounter, using data from a pretest/posttest design with a diverse group of students (n = 211), revealed four factors: (1) appreciating difference, (2) engaging self, (3) critical self-reflection, and (4) alliance building. Furthermore, path analysis shows that these communication processes fully mediate the impact of intergroup dialogue on bridging differences. The communication processes illuminate a deeper understanding of what happens within the context of intergroup encounters and provide a link between pedagogical strategies and psychological processes. Pettigrew’s (1998) reformulation of intergroup contact theory proposed friendship potential as an essential fifth condition for optimal contact, in addition to Allport’s (1954) original conditions of authority sanction, equal group status, common goals, and intergroup cooperation. Going beyond simple acquaintance potential (described by Cook, 1962), friendship potential involves interactions that ∗ Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Biren (Ratnesh) A. Nagda, School of Social Work, University of Washington, 4101 15th Avenue NE, Seattle, WA 98105 [e-mail: [email protected]]. The author thanks Hyun-Jun Kim for assistance with data management and analyses, and Patricia Gurin, Rick Hoyle, Elizabeth Levy Paluck, Linda Tropp, Edwina Uehara, Anna Yeakley, and three anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier drafts of this article. 553  C

2006 The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues

554

Nagda

are sustained over time through repeated contact and are intimate enough to allow for self-disclosure. Nagda, Kim, and Truelove (2004) applied and evaluated the concept of friendship potential in the context of an intergroup educational initiative. They conceptualized bridging differences as motivation to participate in a mutual and reciprocal learning process that involves sharing and learning about racial/ethnic identities, introspective learning about one’s own group and bridge building across differences. As such, recognition of group membership is used as a resource for bridging differences between groups, not for separating groups (Gurin & Nagda, 2006). Nagda and colleagues found that bridging differences mediated the impact of information-oriented lectures and readings (enlightenment), and interactive intergroup dialogue (encounter) (Dovidio et al., 2004) on confidence in taking action toward self-prejudice reduction and promoting diversity with others. In essence, participants’ motivation for bridging differences increased as part of the structured and facilitated intergroup learning environment, and in turn affected other desirable outcomes. The identification of bridging differences as a psychological process is consistent with recent theorizing in intergroup relations that emphasizes the importance of process in understanding the impact of intergroup interventions. As noted by Dovidio et al. (2004), “although it is important to ask whether a particular program is effective in reducing bias, it is also critical, both theoretically and practically, to consider how different types of intervention may reduce different types of bias” (p. 243). However, what “process” means appears to vary between and among researchers and practitioners. To address these issues, I begin with an overview of the different conceptualizations of processes evident in intergroup contact and education research, theory and practice—psychological, pedagogical, and communication processes. This review will serve as a foundation for understanding the role of communication processes in a new theoretical model of intergroup dialogue that integrates the three different types of processes. Conceptualizations about Processes in Intergroup Contact and Intergroup Education Research on processes affecting outcomes of intergroup relations efforts is guided by three distinct approaches influenced by disciplinary fields: the study of psychological, pedagogical, and communication processes. I define each below with illustrative examples. In social psychology, mediating psychological processes generally refer to phenomena that take place within the individual; that is, “they are the internal processes that translate external influences and interventions into reductions of stereotypes, prejudices, and discrimination” (Dovidio et al., 2004, p. 243). For example, prejudice reduction may occur through cognitive processes (e.g.,

Building Bridges across Differences

555

gaining information about other groups) or emotional processes (e.g., experiencing decreases in intergroup anxiety) (see Dovidio et al., 2004; Hewstone, 2003). Another approach to process examines the input of the intervention rather than intrapersonal changes. This approach focuses on pedagogical processes, i.e., teaching and learning methodologies applied to intergroup and multicultural education. For example, Lopez, Gurin, and Nagda (1998) conceptualized two main learning processes in a multicultural education course: content-based learning and active learning. Content learning, similar to Dovidio et al.’s (2004) concept of enlightenment, refers to learning from lectures and readings, methods that are didactic and information-oriented. Active learning, parallel to Dovidio et al.’s (2004) concept of encounter, refers to educational methodologies that are interactive and involve students as active participants in both individual and collective learning. Lopez et al., found that both processes positively impacted students’ structural causal analysis of racial inequality and other intergroup conflict situations. However, only active learning predicted change-oriented actions to address the conflict. The existing research in intergroup contact and education has focused primarily on pedagogical and psychological processes. Yet, recent work suggests the importance of a third conceptualization of process, communication processes, centering on the situational context and interactions people have within the intergroup encounter. Yeakley (1998), for instance, found that personal sharing in a supportive environment distinguished participants in intergroup encounters who had positive experiences from those who had negative ones. Furthermore, the extent of intimacy of personal sharing in the communication determined the depth of intergroup connection that can result. Consistent with this observation, Nagda and Z´un˜ iga (2003) examined the significance of dialogic engagement, defined as speaking, listening, and asking questions. The more the participants valued dialogic engagement, the more positive they were on a variety of outcomes: thinking more about their racial identities, better perspective taking abilities, more comfort in communicating across differences, and more motivated to bridge differences. Involvement in such interactive communication also fosters comfort in interracial/interethnic situations, learning from diverse peers, and reduction in unconscious prejudice immediately after sustained intergroup encounters (Werkmeister-Rozas, 2003; Yeakley, 1998). In this article, I integrate communication processes as part of a larger theoretical model of intergroup dialogue. I present data showing how intergroup dialogue participants construe communication processes. I then test the theoretical model and show how communication processes represent an important aspect in explaining the effectiveness of intergroup dialogues. To more fully understand the complexity of these interactions across differences, fraught with both challenges and rewards, I elaborate below on how communication processes can be estranging or engaging.

556

Nagda

Communication Processes of Estrangement and Engagement across Differences Two strands of research and practice, one on estrangement and another on engagement, help delineate when and how communication in encounters across differences may hinder or help intergroup understanding, collaboration, and action. Estrangement in Encounters Yeakley (1998) showed that intergroup encounters can lead to both negative and positive outcomes. If sharing personal information involved only small talk, instead of further sharing or inquiry, participants became more comfortable with each other, but they gained little intergroup understanding. If the deeper sharing was met with stereotypes, judgments, or criticisms, then participants were likely to feel separated, resentful, and disconnected. Clearly, the qualities of the interactions involved in personal sharing proved to be critical in the outcomes of the encounter. Silence or avoidance of issues, differences in understanding of issues, and difficulties in relating across differences all contribute to estrangement. Even when people of diverse racial and ethnic groups make efforts to talk openly with each other, silence or avoidance is still evident when the conversation approaches controversial or taboo topics. Race itself is one such taboo (Tatum, 1997). Harlon Dalton (1995), an African American lawyer and author of Racial Healing, talks about interactions with his wife, who is white. On being asked by his wife why he was dating her, he reflects: “I don’t remember what I said, but I do remember that Jill [his wife] didn’t seem wholly satisfied. And I have never thought to ask her whether her doubts have since been allayed” (pp. 186–187). Dalton acknowledges the unspoken discomfort, something that he is conscious about but does not voice to his wife. Broaching sensitive matters is perceived to be harmful and injurious to the relationship. Such silence and trepidation goes beyond the private realm. Later in the book, Dalton writes about his church choir: Despite the fact Black/White racial diversity is central to our sense of who we are as a group and is explicitly acknowledged in our name [Salt & Pepper], the choir has had surprising difficulty figuring out how to maintain our racial balance. Recently, for a variety of reasons, the choir began to become increasingly Salty. This disturbed me greatly, though for some reason I mostly kept my feelings to myself [emphases added]. But when Sheila, the original Salt, expressed the same concern to me, I almost shrieked in delight. She thanked me and said she had begun to wonder if she was crazy for thinking that the tilt was a problem, since most of us would prefer to sing than gab, especially about a topic that might produce friction and division. (p. 231)

People often fear making public troubling issues that they may ponder privately, even in settings intended to promote diversity and messages of interracial cooperation. Racial understanding, then, does not simply emerge from working, living,

Building Bridges across Differences

557

or playing together with people who are different from oneself. People often long to also talk about race, but may not know how to do so. When people do “break the silence” (Tatum, 1997) and talk openly about racial issues, dynamics in the wider society may manifest within the encounter setting. As Collins (1996) asserts, “Differences in power constrain our ability to connect with one another even when we think we are engaged in dialogue across differences” (p. 219). These asymmetries are evident in how people may think about diversity, relate to each other and act to counter injustices. Cognitive and analytical asymmetries refer to ways people think about themselves and the issues of diversity. For example, people from different backgrounds are likely to differ in how they experience and think about their group membership. Research consistently shows that people of color and women, compared to white people and men, respectively, are more likely to think about those particular group memberships (Gurin, Peng, Lopez, & Nagda, 1999). These differences then show up in the actual intergroup interactions, as people on different sides often have different views regarding how to relate to each other and the role that group membership should play in that context (Maoz, Steinberg, Bar-On, & Fakhereldeen, 2002). Moreover, even when there is high endorsement of the value of diversity and equality, group differences may produce discrepancies in beliefs about the extent to which they actually exist, or how they should be achieved through further action (Kinder and Sanders, 1996; see also Tropp and Bianchi, this issue). Miller (1994) provides an explanatory clue to the underlying disjuncture: the divergent analytical understanding of diversity. While reviewers of earlier drafts of his coedited book, The Promise of Diversity (Cross, Katz, Miller, & Seashore, 1994), applauded its potential contributions to both organizational studies and practice, they also emphasized that an approach to diversity as a social justice issue, focusing on the struggle against oppression, was not what they considered the prevailing view and that it set a negative tone for the book. The reviewers’ recommendations were that the central focus of the book should be about celebrating difference and the benefits of diversity to job satisfaction and productivity. Miller analyzed the reviewers’ comments: There is a belief that diversity should be about individual differences. . . . But there is also a belief that diversity should be about correcting the injustices visited upon people and groups. . . . [the former perspective] assumes that the fundamental issue of diversity is to create understanding between different individuals. But it too often includes an underlying assumption that addressing discrimination and oppression will result in “pointing fingers of blame” rather than providing a basis for common ground. (p. xxviii)

Miller’s example parallels dynamics that occur in many intergroup interactions. The dominant group’s perspective to difference and diversity is likely to stress harmony rather than conflict (Abu-Nimer, 1999), individual rather than structural causation (Lopez, Gurin, & Nagda, 1998), and preference to talk about personal, everyday life rather than political perspectives (Maoz et al., 2002).

558

Nagda

Together, these differences can contribute to relational and affective asymmetries that lead to communication breakdowns in intergroup interactions. “It is not only hard for us to talk about race and racism, it is hard for us to listen as well—either because we do not want to or do not know how to. The results are usually shouts and yells or whispers and grumbles” (Chesler, 1995, p. 38). The external sociopolitical realities of inequality are also evident in how in which dominant group members control the conversation by asking questions and challenging subordinate group members (Maoz, 2001, 2004). Or dominant group members may invalidate, reframe, and prescribe how subordinated group members should feel (Narayan, 1988). These asymmetries represent the complex and difficult work of sustaining meaningful encounters within the larger social and political realities of intergroup inequalities. How do we move beyond estrangement—avoidance and separation— to a deepened engagement that involves substantive and meaningful interactions and learning? Engagement in Encounters Dialogues across differences have become an important intergroup relations intervention (Stephan & Stephan, 2001). Termed “intergroup dialogue” in higher education settings, this method is increasingly used as a means of engaging students in learning about difference and diversity (Z´un˜ iga, Nagda, & Sevig, 2002), developing democratic sensibilities and civic engagement (Guarasci & Cornwell, 1997; Gurin, Nagda, & Lopez, 2004; Schoem & Hurtado, 2001), and developing visions and actions toward greater justice (Nagda et al., 2004). Within community settings, such dialogues are seen as a means of public deliberation of critical issues and mobilization for community change (McCoy & Scully, 2002). Intergroup dialogues offer one hopeful possibility for deepening engagement across difference. At its core, intergroup dialogue is an intergroup relationshipbuilding process that allows for collective exploration of social identities in the context of social inequalities and promoting social change (Collins, 1996). Intergroup dialogues are guided by trained facilitators who represent the different groups in the dialogue. The dialogues are sustained encounters, not just one-time events, and meet regularly over an extended period of time (e.g., 2-hour weekly meetings over 10–14 weeks). They use a variety of, readings active and experiential activities to stimulate dialogue, and pay particular attention to creating a learning climate to support symmetry and effectiveness in communication. Participants share personal narratives of their lives and social identities. They reflect on the impact of power and privilege on their socialization, social identities, and relationships with each other. They listen to others to understand their perspectives on critical intergroup issues, such as separation and segregation on campus or sexual harassment. They collaborate—within and across social identity groups—on ways

Building Bridges across Differences

559

of improving intergroup relationships and fostering greater justice (Z´un˜ iga et al., 2002). From an engagement perspective, Yeakley (1998) delineated affective processes in intergroup dialogues that supported understanding others from a different social identity group. She found that sharing personal experiences helped to produce increased comfort, increased connectivity, and greater understanding of their own and others’ perspectives and social identities. In-depth analyses showed that these positive processes took place only when the personal sharing and stories were received well. If only similarities in personal experiences were shared, participants developed friendships. However, if differences emerged in the sharing, participants developed a better understanding of multiple perspectives. In those instances where these differences were framed in social identity-related experiences, participants developed greater intergroup understanding. Comerford (2003) similarly identified personal engagement, emotional involvement, and the complexity of holding multiple perspectives as processes distinguishing diversity learning from other kinds of learning. She found that these processes helped support learners transition from simple exposure to different “others” to sharing emotions and building empathy, and finally toward empowerment. This same emphasis on empathy has been shown to shift dynamics in Palestinian-Jewish dialogues, from defensive positional exchanges to more empathic exchanges reflecting an understanding of the complexity of each other’s identities (Maoz et al., 2002). Yet, even in such dialogues, it is important to attend to how typical modes of discourses across differences—such as speaking, interrogating, and interrupting rather than listening—are ways that the program or participants may unintentionally perpetuate dominant group norms (Dalton, 1995), be intentionally social controlling (Abu-Nimer, 1999), or obfuscate issues of inequality (Young, 1997). All of these cautions are concerned with the saliency of identities and the dynamics of power differentials in the interactional context. They all call for a better understanding of the nature and process of dialogue across differences. Theoretical Model and Research Questions In this study, I seek to further the understanding of communication processes that constitute intergroup dialogue engagement, and their role in bridging differences. Figure 1 depicts the theoretical model of intergroup dialogue integrating pedagogical, psychological, and communication processes. The pedagogical processes influence the communication processes, which in turn affect the psychological mediating process of bridging differences. Whereas Dovidio et al.’s (2004) model of intervention-to-outcome emphasizes psychological processes, this theoretical model focuses on the communication milieu that facilitates psychological processes. Two research questions are of interest (1) What

560

Nagda

PEDAGOGICAL PROCESS

COMMUNICATION PROCESS

PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESS

Intergroup Dialogue Encounter

Communication Processes in Intergroup Dialogue

Bridging Differences

Fig. 1. Theoretical model of intergroup dialogue: Integrating pedagogical, communication, and psychological processes.

are the intergroup dialogue communication processes? (2) How can intergroup dialogue communication processes help explain the impact of intergroup encounter on bridging differences? Method Participants Five cohorts of students in a Bachelor of Arts in Social Welfare (BASW) program comprised the study participants. The students were enrolled in a “Cultural Diversity and Justice” course that incorporated a weekly lecture/discussion section and an intergroup dialogue session. As part of the study, participants completed pre- and posttest questionnaires. Pretest surveys were administered the first day of class, and posttest surveys were distributed the last day of class. All the 282 students completed the pretest, whereas 211 (75%) completed the posttest. In this study, data from students who completed both pre- and posttests were analyzed.1 Students were asked to note all the racial/ethnic identities that applied to them, thus allowing them to indicate whether they were bi- or multiracial. The students self-identified as follows: 7% African American/black, 28% Asian American, 12% Latino(a), 7% Native American, and 60% European American/white. Most students, about 84%, grew up in neighborhoods that were mostly racially homogeneous (65% from mostly or all white neighborhoods and 19% from mostly or all people of color neighborhoods). Most students still lived in 1 A chi-square analysis comparing those who completed both pre- and posttests to those who did only the pretest found no differences in racial and gender composition. Similarly, an independent samples t-test on pretest measures of interest found no differences between the two groups.

Building Bridges across Differences

561

homogeneous communities (61% in mostly or all white neighborhoods and 7% in mostly or all people of color neighborhoods). A majority of the students were women (87%), heterosexual (93%), and without a disability (92%). In terms of socioeconomic status, almost half of the students reported being from the lowerworking or lower-middle classes, whereas the other half reported being from the middle- or upper-middle class. Only 1% of students were from the upper class. The age range was 19–54 years, with a median of 22 years. Measures Pedagogical processes. In the posttest survey, students assessed their involvement in the two learning components of the course—enlightenment (lectures and readings) and encounter (intergroup dialogues)—as well as the importance of different parts of each component. For both components, students responded to (1) “Please indicate how involved you were in each of the following learning opportunities,” on a scale of 1 (not at all involved) to 4 (very involved); and (2) “Please indicate how important different aspects of the two parts were in facilitating your learning,” on a scale of 1 (not at all important) to 4 (very important). Thus, enlightenment was operationalized as a composite score using the four-item set of involvement and importance ratings of lectures and readings (Cronbach’s α = .63). Encounter was operationalized as level of involvement in intergroup dialogues and the associated weekly reflection papers, and ratings of the importance of specific components of the intergroup dialogues—peer student facilitation, structured activities, weekly reflection papers, small group setting, and having a diverse group of students (Cronbach’s α = .71). Because the focus of the study is on communication processes in the intergroup encounter, we controlled for the impact of enlightenment learning on bridging differences in the regression analyses. Psychological processes. Nagda et al. (2004) identified bridging differences as a mediating process in a previous study. As Stephan and Stephan (2001) have indicated, a mediating process may also be an outcome; what makes it a mediating process is that it in turn leads to other outcomes. In this study, we are interested in how the intergroup dialogue communication processes influence the psychological process of bridging differences. Bridging differences was measured in both pre- and posttest surveys as a four-item set: “It is important for me to educate others about the race/ethnic group(s) to which I belong,” “I like to learn about the race/ethnic group(s) different from my own,” “As I learn more about other race/ethnic groups, I find myself wanting to learn more about my own race/ethnic group(s),” and “I want to bridge differences between different race/ethnic groups.” The response scale ranged from 1 (not at all like me) to 5 (very much like me). (Cronbach’s α pretest = .69; posttest = .75).

562

Nagda Table 1. Factor Loadings of Communication Process Items 1

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

Being able to disagree Sharing my views and experiences Asking questions that I felt I was not able to ask before Addressing difficult issues and questions Being able to speak openly without feeling judged Being allowed to make mistakes and reconsider my opinions (g) Hearing different points of view (h) Learning from each other (i) Hearing other students’ personal stories (j) Being challenged to examine the sources of my biases and assumptions (k) Being supported to appreciate the experiences different from my own (l) Being encouraged to think about issues that I may not have before (m) Being encouraged to understand how privilege and oppression affect our lives (n) Other students’ willingness to understand their own biases and assumptions (o) Hearing other students’ passion about social issues (p) Hearing other students’ commitment to work against injustices (q) Talking about ways to take action on social issues (r) Exploring ways to take action with people from different racial/ethnic groups (s) Working through disagreements and conflicts (t) Feeling a sense of hope in being able to challenge injustices % age variance explained (total = 65.9%)

2 .761 .660 .496 .716 .643 .444

3

4 .386

.395

.490 .383

.487 .681 .838 .659 .737 .787

.409

.543

.559

.438

.700 .804

.469

.855 .798 .574 .726 21.7

.420 16.2

15.2

12.9

Note. Only significant factor loadings are noted. Underlined loadings denote factor structures.

Communication processes. The posttest survey included a set of 20 communication items developed for this study (Table 1) based on previous qualitative (Z´un˜ iga, Scalera, Sevig, & Nagda, 1997) and quantitative research (Nagda & Z´un˜ iga, 2003) on intergroup dialogues as well as on-going practice. Using a scale of 1 (not at all important) to 4 (very important), students rated how important each communication process was in their learning. Results Question 1: What are the intergroup dialogue communication processes? A principal component analysis with a varimax rotation was conducted to determine how participants constructed the intergroup dialogue communication processes as assessed through the 20-item set. The analysis produced a

Building Bridges across Differences

563

four-component solution (see Table 1) conforming to the Kaiser rule of retaining factors with eigen value greater than 1. The four components explained 65.9% of the total variance in the original variables. Using Cliff and Hamburger’s (1967) specification, the minimum critical value for significant and nonchance factor loading for a sample size of 187 was determined to be 2(.187) or .374. Most items showed significant loading only on one factor. If an item had two significant loadings, it was included in the factor with the higher loading (items b, d, h, m, n, and s) or conceptually included with the appropriate factor (item g). The four-factor solution shows how the participants construct the intergroup dialogue communication processes. These processes are described below, including reliability and descriptive information for scales (constructed as mean scores of the items). 1. Alliance building involves relating to and thinking about collaborating with others in taking actions toward social justice. Even processes such as “other students’ willingness to look at biases and assumptions” and “working through disagreements and conflicts,” which do not deal directly with taking action are integral to alliance building; they deal with issues involved in close collaborations. When one sees others willing to be honest and confront their biases, one senses an openness and vulnerability in confronting self and others. Further, hearing others talking passionately about social justice and change helps one to be willing to challenge the dominant status quo and inequalities. Cronbach’s α = .92; M = 3.65; SD = .47. 2. Engaging self is the involvement of oneself as a participant in interactions with others. Engagement is active, not passive; one brings one’s own experiences and ideas through personal sharing, inquiry, and reconsideration of perspectives as part of the intergroup interaction, rather than apart from the interaction. Cronbach’s α = .82; M = 3.66; SD = .45. 3. Critical self-reflection refers to the examination of one’s ideas, experiences and perspectives as located in the context of inequality, privilege, and oppression. In intergroup dialogue, there is a purposeful analysis of intergroup issues through an intergroup conflict analysis of power inequalities and differential positionalities. Cronbach’s α = .83; M = 3.72; SD = .45. 4. Appreciating difference is learning about others, hearing personal stories, and hearing about different points of view in face-to-face encounters; it is an openness to learning about realities different from one’s own (Pettigrew, 1998). The face-to-face nature of dialogue helps put a “face to the difference” and “real voices” to the stories. Cronbach’s α = .80; M = 3.84; SD = .40. In light of the research on asymmetries in intergroup encounters, I analyzed whether the four communication processes were similar or different for students of color and white students. A dichotomous race variable was created (1 = students who indicated identification as a racial/ethnic minority and 2 = white

564

Nagda

students). Bi/multi-racial students who also indicated white/European American identification were classified as students of color because they are often treated like racial/ethnic minorities in the larger society. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted with race as a between-subject variable. MANOVA results revealed no significant racial differences on the combined dependent variables (Wilks’ λ = .965, F(4,179) = 1.600, p = .176). Similarly, univariate tests also showed no significant racial differences on each of the four communication processes. Thus, at least in the importance of communication processes in the intergroup dialogues studied, there were no racial/ethnic asymmetries. Question 2: How can intergroup dialogue communication processes help explain the impact of intergroup encounter on bridging differences? The heart of this study examines the role of intergroup encounter and the communication processes in intergroup dialogue in bridging differences. As shown in the theoretical model, I hypothesized that intergroup dialogue communication processes will mediate the effect of encounter intervention on bridging differences. Multiple and hierarchical regression analyses were used to examine the mediation effect of the communication processes (appreciating difference, engaging self, critical self-reflection, and alliance building) on the relationship between the encounter and bridging differences (controlling for course year, race, gender, pretest bridging differences scores, and the composite score regarding the enlightenment intervention). As expected, bivariate correlational analyses among the four intergroup dialogue communication processes reveal significant intercorrelations ranging from .427 (appreciating difference and alliance building, p < .001) to .657 (engaging self and critical self-reflection, p < .001). Following Baron and Kenny (1986), three steps must be present for the mediation effect of intergroup dialogue communication process to be significant. Step 1: The encounter intervention and each of the four communication processes must be significantly related to bridging differences, after controlling for course year, race, gender, prebridging differences, and enlightenment. We controlled for the enlightenment aspect of learning because the study and theoretical model aims to understand communication processes within the encounter situation. Consistent with our hypothesis, results show that intergroup encounter and the four communication processes are all positively related to bridging differences at posttest: intergroup encounter (β = .231, t = 3.763, p = .000, one-tailed), alliance building (β = .332, t = 5.415, p = .000), engaging self (β = .309, t = 5.423, p = .000), critical self-reflection (β = .305, t = 5.117, p = .000), and appreciating difference (β = .208, t = 3.495, p = .001, one-tailed). The variance explained ranges from 38.6% to 43.8%. Step 2: Encounter intervention should be significantly related to each of the four intergroup dialogue processes (after controlling for other variables, as described above). As predicted, results show that encounter intervention is indeed

Building Bridges across Differences

565

positively related to alliance building (β = .323, t = 4.586, p = .000, one-tailed), engaging self (β = .503, t = 7.317, p = .000, one-tailed), critical self-reflection (β = .324, t = 4.507, p = .000, one-tailed), and appreciating difference (β = .432, t = 6.069, p = .000, one-tailed) when course year, race, gender, and enlightenment intervention are entered as control variables. Step 3: The impact of intergroup encounter on bridging differences will be mediated by the four communication processes (controlling for other variables, as described above). The results confirm that the four intergroup dialogue communication processes, entered simultaneously, mediate the effect of encounter on intergroup learning. The significant relationship between encounter intervention and bridging differences (β = .228, t = 3.655, p = .000) becomes nonsignificant (β = .084, t =1.243, p = .108) when all of the intergroup dialogue communication processes are added. The variance explained changes significantly from 39.2% to 47.3%. These results support the overall theoretical model (Figure 1); the communication processes comprise part of the mechanism through which intergroup encounters lead to increased motivation to bridge differences. The literature reviewed earlier, especially the work of Yeakley (1998) and Comerford (2003), implies that interaction in the dialogic encounter can be deepened via a series of communication moves. They similarly map interactional and learning processes starting with simple contact and sharing common interests, to building empathy and sharing personal experiences around differences in social identities. The question thus arises: How are the four intergroup communication processes interrelated in the overall mediation effect? Building on the research literature, the sequence of communication processes can begin with appreciating difference (exposure to and learning about others), move to engaging self and critical self-reflection, and finally to alliance building. In essence, this suggests a refining of the understanding of the mediated impact of intergroup encounter on bridging differences. A path analysis of the revised theoretical model, looking at the impact of each of the communication processes was conducted using Baron and Kenny’s (1986) guidelines for mediation. Step 2 above confirms the significant relationship of encounter learning on each of the four communication processes. Hierarchical regression analysis was then used to investigate the mediation effect of each of the communication processes on the relationship between intergroup encounter and bridging differences. The results (see Table 2) support the suggestion of earlier results and the literature that the four communication processes operate sequentially in mediating the impact of intergroup dialogue encounter on bridging differences.2 Step 3 shows 2 Figure 2 also shows results from hierarchical regression analyses investigating the paths among the four communication processes. These results are not included in Table 2. In each case, the specific

566

Nagda

Table 2. Hierarchical Regression Analyses Investigating the Relationship of Intergroup Dialogue Encounter, Communication Processes, and Bridging Differences Dependent Variable: Bridging Differences Pedagogical process Encounter learning Communication processes Appreciate difference Engaging self Critical self-reflection Alliance building R2 F (df)

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5

.228∗∗∗

.167∗∗

.096

– – – – .392∗∗∗ 19.215 (6,179)

.143∗ – – – .408∗∗∗ 17.641 (7,179)

.000 .266∗∗∗ – – .444∗∗∗ 17.797 (8,178)

Step 6

Step 7

.099

.084

−.026 .188∗ .146∗

−.038 .160∗

– .455∗∗∗ 16.342 (9,176)

.074 .183∗∗ .473∗∗∗ 15.676 (10,175)

Note. β coefficient are reported. ∗∗∗ p < .001, ∗∗ p < .01, ∗ p < .05 (one-tailed).

the significant relationship between encounter learning and bridging differences. The encounter, which involves students in facilitated small diverse groups using explicit ground rules for dialogue and experiential activities, sets the groundwork for productive intergroup exchange. In each subsequent step (Steps 4 through 7), a communication process was added to the equation. Appreciating difference partially mediates the impact of intergroup dialogue encounter on bridging differences (Step 4), marked by a reduction in the β coefficient. Adding engaging self (Step 5) shows the full mediation of the impact of encounter and appreciating difference on bridging differences. Critical self-reflection has a direct effect on bridging differences and also partially mediates the impact of engaging self on bridging differences (Step 6). Finally, adding alliance building into the equation (Step 7) shows two important results: (1) the direct impact of engaging self (β = .160, t = 1.800, p = .037) and alliance building (β = .183, t = 2.394, p = .009) on bridging differences, and (2) alliance building fully mediates the impact of critical self-reflection on bridging differences. Figure 2 shows the resultant paths. Discussion This study investigated a new theoretical component in intergroup contact— communication processes in dialogues across differences. Three important findings are noteworthy. First, the study advances our understanding of the specific ways in which participants construct communication processes in intergroup dialogues. Identification of the four communication processes—appreciating communication process was a dependent variable with intergroup dialogue encounter and the preceding communication process(es) as independent variables (using the same control variables as in the results reported in Table 2).

Building Bridges across Differences

567

PEDAGOGICAL PROCESS

COMMUNICATION PROCESSES

PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESS

Appreciating Difference

.426***

CONTROL VARIABLES •

Course year

•

Race

•

Gender

•

Bridging Differences (pre-test)

•

Enlightenment Learning

.536***

Engaging Self Intergroup Dialogue Encounter

.268***

.183**

.160*

.532***

Bridging Differences

Critical Self-reflection .408***

.183**

Alliance Building

∗∗∗ p < .001, ∗∗ p < .01, ∗ p < .05 (one-tailed) [only significant paths are shown]. Fig. 2. Mediational effects of communication processes on the impact of intergroup dialogue encounter on bridging differences.

difference, engaging self, critical self-reflection, and alliance building—helps illuminate the complexity of intergroup dialogues. Second, theoretically informed path analyses showed that the communication processes explain how the pedagogical process of intergroup encounter impacts upon the psychological process of bridging differences. Third, the four communication processes are interrelated in their collective impact on bridging differences. The path analyses show that both engaging self—involving oneself in the encounter through sharing, asking questions, reconsidering ideas—and alliance building—through working out differences, talking about actions for social justice with others—have a direct effect on bridging differences. While many intergroup efforts focus on appreciating difference and engaging self in the intergroup encounter, this study shows the necessity of critical self-reflection and alliance building, especially in situations where sociopolitical differences are real and salient outside of the encounter situation. The present study raises important conceptual, theoretical, and practical lessons to deepen our understanding of intergroup dialogues specifically, and intergroup contact in general.

568

Nagda

Conceptualizing Intergroup Dialogue Communication Processes Elucidating the four communication processes furthers our understanding of the complexity of intergroup dialogue. Two dimensions of engagement—dialogue and criticality—frame the four communication processes. Dialogue as a process to achieve relational symmetry has to do with the complexity of “self-other” interactions, ways in which “self” and “other” are engaged or estranged. Criticality as a process to achieve cognitive and analytic symmetry has to do with the conceptualization of intergroup issues in the encounter—in terms of individual difference or in the context of social (in)justice (Miller, 1994). Appreciating difference conveys an openness to learning about others. By itself, appreciating difference is what Stewart, Zediker, and Black (2004) highlight as a voyeurism about others, not interaction with others. Engaging self—sharing, asking questions, disagreeing, and reconsidering perspectives—conveys an active involvement of oneself in the intergroup encounter. While appreciating difference means being open to learning about others, engaging self may be conceived of as an opening of oneself to others, to participate with others. Together, the processes of appreciating difference and engaging self point to joint, mutual, and active learning with others that shifts simple exposure to others to engagement with others. Both appreciating difference and engaging self-conceive of diversity as individual difference; they do not speak to a critical analysis of oneself or of self-other relations. Criticality in intergroup dialogue, emphasizing a conceptualization of intergroup issues and relating vis-`a-vis social inequality and social justice, involves both critical self-reflection and alliance building. When critical self-reflection happens in the context of dialogue, it can spur greater insight into both the social structural forces of inequality as well as the individual impact on participants in the dialogue and the dialogic engagement itself. Thus, critical self-reflection sets intergroup dialogues apart from solely anti-bias, prejudice reduction, and other efforts directed toward intergroup harmony: “Commonly used multicultural approaches often focus on the ‘minority’ cultures and groups without engaging critical, selfreflexive nonessentialist perspectives” (Asher, 2003, p. 235). Alliance building, a second component of criticality, attends to social inclusion and expands the focus from self-reflection to joining with others to challenge unequal power relations. Rather than seeing silence or avoidance as individual qualities, or seeing difficulty in racial engagement as static and unchangeable, participants can act on their joint agency to support, challenge, and engage with each other. Nagda and colleagues (2004), in their discussion about bridging differences, had raised the question whether bridging differences was about building friendships or alliances. The distinct dimensions of dialogue and criticality in communication processes help to differentiate the goals of friendships and alliances in intergroup contact. Friendship, related closely to appreciating difference and engaging self, implies a personal intimacy and liking, and is often based on similarities

Building Bridges across Differences

569

(Brown & Lopez, 2001). However, I contend that it is criticality—in self-reflection and intergroup collaboration toward greater social justice—that distinguishes alliances from friendships. Alliances involve a trusting, conjoint commitment toward learning and action in the context of differences and inequalities; they represent an earnest grappling with differences and conflicts in the pursuit of social justice. Together, the dialogic and criticality dimensions in intergroup dialogue necessitate a focus on alliances as a way of improving intergroup relations. More than just dialogue and more than just critical analysis, there is a commitment to conjoint actions across differences. Such alliances involve undoing prejudice and discrimination as manifestations of inequalities as well as attending to the relational dimensions in such actions. Alliances are not just about acting against oppression; they also attend to preventing the reproduction of power inequalities and exclusion in the relationship. Those involved in alliances must, therefore, be critically cognizant of and dialogically engaged in how the actions are taken, who is participating in the actions and what is the impact of actions on the collaborators. Theorizing Intergroup Engagement: Toward Critical-Dialogic Empathy The path analysis is instructive in laying out a deepened process of intergroup relating, one that moves from simple exposure and encounter to sustained engagement and empowerment (Comerford, 2003). This process is only partially like the traditional definitions of empathy in social psychology, that is taking the perspectives of others and/or responding emotionally to others (Stephan & Finlay, 1999). I argue here that the dialogic relationship building, the contextualization of group differences in social structural analysis of power and privilege, and the commitment to the collaborative pursuit of justice, transforms traditional empathy to a critical form of dialogic listening, sharing, and acting. In the early stages of dialogue, students engage in active listening skill-building exercises focused on listening to the content, tuning into the emotion, and paraphrasing. Stewart and Thomas (1995), however, propose dialogic listening that speaks more clearly to our endeavor. Whereas active listening implies a one-way relationship of listener and speaker, dialogic listening construes the relating as a joint, shared activity. People take turns in listening actively, which may create more equality in the relating; however, dialogic listening involves attending not only to the other person’s views (as actively listening does) but also to one’s own views simultaneously. In dialogic listening, interactants attend to and voice what is happening in the here-and-now of the relationship. Dialogic listening and sharing processes give one an opportunity to share one’s own thoughts and feelings, to join with others, and to understand these in relation to each other. But, dialogic listening and sharing by themselves capture only part of the intergroup dialogue process. What happens in a deeper self-other engagement, especially when the relationship is conceived of in intergroup and not just

570

Nagda

interpersonal terms? Because dialogic listening in intergroup dialogue involves developing affective relationships across cultural and power differences, it makes imperative a consideration of the social context as it impacts on individuals, groups, and the intergroup relationship (Broome, 1991; Collins, 1996). Narayan’s (1988) analysis of dialogue across differences shows that even when attempts are made to build trust and collaborations, misunderstandings and communication breakdowns often reflect continued societal inequalities. For the possibility of alliances across differences in the context of social inequalities to be real, both groups must “work toward replacing judgments by category with new ways of thinking and acting” (Collins, 1996, p. 223). That is, dialogic listening and sharing has to be purposeful and connected to social change. For such a possibility to be realized, I propose that dialogic listening and sharing has to be coupled with critical empathy: [it] refers to the process of establishing informed and affective connections with other human beings, of thinking and feeling with them at some emotionally, intellectually, and socially significant level, while always remembering that such connections are complicated by sociohistorical forces that hinder equitable, just relationships that we presumably seek. Critical empathy is a hopeful but cautious concept, . . . [that] goes beyond individual notions of caring. . . . it is a disposition that urges us to understand the powerful structures and ideologies that constrain us to think and act in prescribed ways (often exploitative), while at the same time challenging us to break free of those constraints. (DeStigter, 1999, p. 240)

DeStigter writes from his own standpoint of race, gender, class, national, and professional privilege as a teacher-researcher working with low-income Latina(o) youth in an English-as-a-second-language program. I expand his notion of critical empathy to also include the empathetic agency of subordinated group members to understand and act upon both their own and privileged group members’ biographies that are intimately interconnected yet differentially affected by structured societal advantages and inequalities. In essence, the integration of appreciating difference, engaging self, critical self-reflection, and alliance building in intergroup dialogue fosters the realization of connections that are both dialogic and critical. Such connectivity, not estrangement, entails a process of building trust and alliances that can unfold from breaking down the walls of separation, isolation, and silence. Arising out of a critical, dialogic process, bridging differences is not predicated on trust, but fosters trust through personal and political intimacy involving conjoint dialogue, and experimentations in collaborations for action. Making Practical: Toward Critical-Dialogic Practice The conceptual and theoretical discussion of dialogue and criticality as dimensions of deepened intergroup engagement raise the practice question: How might we deepen intergroup engagement, and build on friendships to lead to intergroup alliances?

Building Bridges across Differences

571

The findings make imperative the inclusion of both dialogic self-other relationship building and critical analysis-action processes in intergroup education efforts that go beyond solely prejudice reduction and toward social inclusion. The path analysis shows how the four communication processes can be mobilized to enrich the intergroup dialogue experience. Dialogue, a combination of engaging self and appreciating difference, is crucial in its contribution to bridge building between groups. The self-other dialogic relationship can be further enhanced through the processes of critical self-reflection and alliance building for action. Thus, a critical-dialogic practice necessitates that a deepened engagement involve more than just talk; it involves a reflection on how positions of privilege and oppression impact on both individuals and relations with others, and on how to join with others in working for greater social justice. As Tatum (1997) eloquently summarized, “We need to continually break the silence about racism whenever we can. . . . But talk does not mean idle chatter. It means meaningful, productive dialogue to raise consciousness and to lead to effective action and social change” (p. 193). Yeakley’s (1998) delineation of the change process in intergroup dialogue maps a way of deepening the dialogue process from personal stories to a consideration of issues of differences and social group identities. In light of conceptualizing and theorizing intergroup engagement as enjoining self and other, and given Yeakley’s finding that positive benefits of sharing personal information accrue only when that information is received well, intergroup encounters must facilitate a dialogic, relational connection among participants to result in positive outcomes. A climate of intergroup encounter that is conducive to personal sharing—where participants not only feel that they have a voice but also feel heard, acknowledged, and reciprocated—must be created. Participants should be guided in developing and practicing dialogue in the group. Thus, listeners in the dialogue may show their acknowledgment or appreciation of the sharing through paraphrasing, sharing similar experiences, and articulating their feelings and thoughts about hearing those experiences. To foster dialogic relating, encounter facilitators may ask questions such as: What about others—what do you think? How did you hear her/him? How do you relate to what has been shared? What is the impact of our conversation on you? Yeakley also identified a range of other possible intergroup outcomes if the personal information shared included differences and identity experiences. The dialogue here can be expanded to include other voices and personal stories— both similar and different. Inquiry could involve using a social identity analysis of different perspectives, such as: What do you think accounts for the different perspectives and experiences? How do our racial/ ethnic identities impact our perspectives? Participants can also be encouraged to frame their perspectives with more contextual information, when applicable, such as: “As a person of Color, I see the situation thus . . . ,” or “As a white person having grown up in a homogeneous community, . . . ,” or “Coming from a communal culture, . . . .” The key

572

Nagda

intergroup dynamic to attend to is a two-way, mutually participatory process of sharing, listening, and inquiring. That is, listening to others is to be complemented with sharing of self, and asking questions of others is to be complemented by reconsidering one’s own perspectives vis-`a-vis social identities. The current study extends Yeakley’s findings by showing the development of critical self-reflection in terms of understanding one’s own experiences in the context of social positions and building alliances for greater social justice. Participants from both groups could engage with questions such as: How does internalized oppression and internalized domination impede our abilities to build alliances across differences and immobilize action for social change? For racially/ethnically marginalized groups, cultivating responsibility and empowerment may involve undoing disenfranchisement, building solidarity with others, finding efficacy in acting against oppression, and engaging with the question, “How can marginality be a site of resistance for people of color?” For white people in interracial dialogues, inquiry that shifts privilege to responsibility may involve undoing shame and guilt, finding efficacy in acting against privilege and oppression, and engaging with the question, “How can we use our positions of privilege to be positive models of white people striving to be antiracist?” The key intergroup dynamic here involves dialoguing about the impact of systems of inequalities on both groups and moving to how to undo them. Many practitioners suggest that such discussions be held first in intragroup caucuses, followed by dialogue between groups (Pheterson, 1990). It is possible that the limited duration of the contact may sometimes not be ideal for fostering substantive actions, but wherever possible, projects that link dialogue and action should be included. For example, participants may role play intergroup conflict situations and try out different active interventions. In between meetings, participants could be directed to carry out actions outside the encounter setting that confront prejudice and promote social inclusion. Participants may also collectively envision an antiracist/antioppressive institution and identify steps toward that vision from the prevailing state of affairs. The important elements to include here are applied learning, and reflection on the actions in later dialogue sessions to generate a spectrum of do-able actions as well as dialogue about the intergroup collaboration process. The key intergroup dynamic here involves attention not only on how dominant group members become allies to subordinated group members (e.g., see Wijeyesinghe, Griffin, & Love, 1997), but also to ensuring that within the intergroup collaboration, subordinated group members have agency and are empowered. Conceptualizing alliances as collaborative actions moves the equation of action and agency from the purview of only dominant groups or only subordinated groups to agency as integral to the interracial/ethnic, or any intergroup, relationship. This involves a negotiation of roles and actions whereby the agency of subordinated group members and undoing of internalized domination of dominant groups are of critical importance and not undermined. Inclusive, caring, and

Building Bridges across Differences

573

critically tended alliances allow for mindful, affective actions that can empower all participants. Limitations and Future Directions for Research While enriching the integration of research, theory, and practice on intergroup contact and intergroup education, the present study has limitations worth noting. This study is based on data collected on an intergroup education effort at just one institution and thus limits generalizability. Conceptually and empirically, the communication processes focused solely on engagement, with no concomitant evaluation of estrangement. Future research can include estrangement processes to further our understanding of the complexity of intergroup interactions. For example, questions about the extent to which participants felt judged, silenced, or interrupted could be included. Group climate questions may focus on safety, comfort, and risk-taking. Methodologically, the data are self-reported by students and do not measure actual behaviors of communication in the intergroup encounter. Future research should involve collecting evidence of actual behaviors, for example, through observation or video-taping. Moreover, the data were collected from students in a required course, and collected only in the academic quarter of their enrollment. Future research can include comparison group of students (from other courses) and collecting longitudinal data to assess long-term impact. Finally, the theoretically derived path analysis of communication processes may be only one such sequence possible. Future research can test alternate models as well as use more advanced structural equation modeling techniques for analyses. Conclusion This study bridges theory, research, and practice of intergroup dialogue. Theoretically, this study expands Dovidio et al.’s (2004) model of intervention-tooutcome to examine the interactional processes that happen within the encounter intervention. The communication processes help illuminate interactions in the encounter that facilitate the psychological processes that in turn impact on outcomes. Research-wise, the strong theoretical and practice foundation contributed to developing intergroup dialogue communication process measures for use in future studies. Practically, this study benefits our collective thinking about structuring and facilitating intergroup encounters in conditions of historical and persistent inequalities that require both interpersonal and intergroup elements in contact (Hewstone et al., 2005). Intergroup dialogue represents one approach that incorporates interpersonal and intergroup elements, reflected in friendship and alliance building processes, respectively. These joint friendships-alliances are marked by critical-dialogic

574

Nagda

empathy, and are purposeful in that they carry a responsibility to engender justice. In situations of intergroup contact among groups located in stratified social structures, critical-dialogic empathy not only connects one through imagining the experience of the other but also engages one deeply in self-reflection, dialogue, and action to better the lived experience of both the other and the self: Empathy is not simply a matter of trying to imagine what others are going through, but having the will to muster enough courage to do something about it. In a way, empathy is predicated upon hope. (West, 1999, p. 12)

References Abu-Nimer, M. (1999). Dialogue, conflict resolution, and change: Arab-Jewish encounters in Israel. Blue Mountain Lake, NY: State University of New York Press. Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Asher, N. (2003). Engaging difference: Towards a pedagogy of interbeing. Teaching Education, 14(3), 235–247. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. Broome, B. (1991). Building shared meaning: Implications of a relational approach to empathy for teaching intercultural communication. Communication Education, 40(3), 235–249. Brown, L. M., & Lopez, G. E. (2001). Political contacts: Analyzing the role of similarity in theories of prejudice. Political Psychology, 22(2), 279–292. Chesler, M. A. (1995). Racetalk. Diversity Factor, 3(3), 37–45. Collins, P. H. (1996). Toward a new vision: Race, class and gender as categories of analysis and connection. In K. Rosenblum & T. Travis (Eds.), The meaning of difference: American constructions of race, sex and gender, social class and sexual orientation (pp. 213–223). New York: McGraw-Hill. Comerford, S. A. (2003). Enriching classroom learning about diversity: Supports and strategies from a qualitative study. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 23(3/4), 159–183. Cook, S. W. (1962). The systematic analysis of socially significant events: A strategy for social research. Journal of Social Issues, 18(1), 66–84. Cross, E. Y., Katz, J. H., Miller, F. A., & Seashore, E. W. (1994). The promise of diversity: Over 40 voices discuss strategies for eliminating discrimination in organizations. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin. Dalton, H. (1995). Racial healing: Confronting the fear between Blacks and Whites. New York: Doubleday. DeStigter, T. (1999). Public displays of affection: Political community through critical empathy. Research in the Teaching of English, 33(3), 235–244. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Stewart, T. L., Esses, V. M., ten Vergert, M., & Hodson, G. (2004). From intervention to outcome: Processes in the reduction of bias. In W. G. Stephan & W. P. Vogt (Eds.), Education programs for improving intergroup relations; Theory, research and practice (pp. 243–265). New York: Teachers College Press. Guarasci, R., & Cornwell, G. H. (1997). Democratic education in an age of difference: Redefining citizenship in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gurin, P., & Nagda, B. A. (2006). Getting to the what, how and why of diversity on campus. Educational Researcher, 35(1), 20–24. Gurin, P., Nagda, B. A., & Lopez, G. E. (2004). The benefits of diversity in education for democratic citizenship. Journal of Social Issues, 60(1), 17–34. Gurin, P., Peng, T., Lopez, G. E., & Nagda, B. A. (1999). Context, identity and intergroup relations. In D. Prentice & D. Miller (Eds.), Cultural divides: Understanding and overcoming group conflict (pp. 133–170). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Hewstone, M. (2003). Intergroup contact: Panacea for prejudice? The Psychologist, 16(7), 352– 355.

Building Bridges across Differences

575

Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., Voci, A., Paolini, S., McLernon, F., Crisp, R. J., Niens, U., & Craig, J. (2005). Intergroup contact in a divided society: Challenging segregation in Northern Ireland. In D. Abrams, M. A. Hogg, & J. M. Marques (Eds.), The social psychology of inclusion and exclusion (pp. 265–292). New York: Psychology Press. Kinder, D. R., & Sanders, L. M. (1996). Divided by color: Racial politics and democratic ideals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lopez, G. E., Gurin, P., & Nagda, B. A. (1998). Education and understanding structural causes for group inequalities. Journal of Political Psychology, 19(2), 305–329. Maoz, I. (2001). Participation, control, and dominance in communication between groups in conflict: Analysis of dialogues between Jews and Palestinians in Israel. Social Justice Research, 14(2), 189–208. Maoz, I. (2004). Coexistence is in the eye of the beholder: Evaluating intergroup encounter interventions between Jews and Arabs in Israel. Journal of Social Issues, 60(2), 437–452. Maoz, I., Steinberg, S., Bar-On, D., & Fakhereldeen, M. (2002). The dialogue between the ‘self’ and the ‘other’: A process analysis of Palestinian-Jewish encounters in Israel. Human Relations, 55(8), 931–962. McCoy, M. L., & Scully, P. L. (2002). Deliberative dialogue to expand civic engagement: What kind of talk does democracy need? National Civic Review, 91(2), 117–135. Miller, F. (1994). Why we chose to address oppression. In E. Y. Cross, J. H. Katz, F. A. Miller, & E. W. Seashore (Eds.), The promise of diversity: Over 40 voices discuss strategies for eliminating discrimination in organizations (pp. xxv–xxix). Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin. Nagda, B. A., Kim, C. W., & Truelove, Y. (2004). Learning about difference, learning with others, learning to transgress. Journal of Social Issues, 60(1), 195–214. Nagda, B. A., & Z´un˜ iga, X. (2003). Fostering meaningful racial engagement through intergroup dialogues. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6(1), 111–128. Narayan, U. (1988). Working together across difference: Some considerations on emotions and political practice. Hypatia, 3(2), 31–47. Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85. Pheterson, G. (1990). Alliances between women: Overcoming internalized oppression and internalized domination. In L. Albrecht & R. Brewer (Eds.), Bridges of power: Women’s multicultural alliances (pp. 34–48). Philadelphia: New Society Publishers. Schoem, D., & Hurtado, S. (2001). Intergroup dialogue: Deliberative democracy in school, college, community and workplace. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Stephan, W. G., & Finlay, K. (1999). The role of empathy in improving intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55(4), 729–743. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2001). Improving intergroup relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stewart, J., & Thomas, M. (1995). Dialogic listening: Sculpting mutual meanings. In J. Stewart (Ed.), Bridges not walls, (6th ed., pp. 184–210). New York: McGraw-Hill. Stewart, J., Zediker, K. E., & Black, L. (2004). Relationships among philosophies of dialogue. In R. Anderson, L. A. Baxter, & K. N. Cissna (Eds.), Dialogue: Theorizing difference in communication studies (pp. 21–38). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Tatum, B. D. (1997). Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? And other conversations about race. New York: Basic Books. Werkmeister-Rozas, L. (2003). The effect of intergroup dialogue on cross-racial friendships and cross-racial interaction in a learning environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Smith College. West, C. (1999). The moral obligation of living in a democratic society. In D. Batstone & E. Mendieta (Eds.), The good citizen (pp. 5–12). New York: Routledge. Wijeyesinghe, C. L., Griffin, P., & Love, B. (1997). Racism curriculum design. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice: A sourcebook (pp. 82–108). New York: Routledge. Yeakley, A. (1998). The nature of prejudice change: Positive and negative change processes arising from intergroup contact experiences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan. Young, I. M. (1997). Intersecting voices: Dilemmas of gender, political philosophy, and policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

576

Nagda

Z´un˜ iga, X., Nagda, B. A., & Sevig, T. D. (2002). Intergroup dialogues: An educational model for cultivating student engagement across differences. Equity and Excellence in Education, 35(1), 7–17. Z´un˜ iga, X., Scalera, C. V., Sevig, T. D., & Nagda, B. A. (1997). Exploring and bridging race/ethnic differences: Developing intergroup dialogue competencies in a co-learning environment. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, Illinois.

BIREN (RATNESH) A. NAGDA, PhD, MSW, MA is Associate Professor of Social Work and Director of the Intergroup Dialogue, Education and Action (IDEA) Center at the University of Washington (http://www.ssw.washington.edu/idea). In 2001, he received the University of Washington Distinguished Teaching Award. In 2006, the IDEA Center received the University of Washington Brotman Award for Instructional Excellence in recognition of its efforts to advance innovative learning for undergraduates. Dr. Nagda’s research and teaching interests focus on cultural diversity and social justice, intergroup dialogue, and empowerment-oriented social work practice and education. He recently completed a study of community-based dialogue programs and is currently conducting a multiuniversity evaluation of college-based intergroup dialogues.