Ximena ZXimena Zúñiúñiga ga Jaclyn RodriguezJaclyn Rodriguez Univ Mass Amherst Univ Mass Amherst Occidental College Occidental College

Delia S. SaenzDelia S. Saenz Anna Yeakley Anna Yeakley Arizona State UnivArizona State Univ Occidental CollegeOccidental College

Kathleen Wong(Lau) Kathleen Wong(Lau) Western Michigan Univ Western Michigan Univ

Leveraging Educational Leveraging Educational Benefits Benefits

of Diversity through of Diversity through Intergroup Dialogue (IGD)Intergroup Dialogue (IGD)

Patricia Gurin, PIPatricia Gurin, PI

University of Michigan University of Michigan

Ratnesh Nagda, Co-PIRatnesh Nagda, Co-PI

University of WashingtonUniversity of Washington

Ximena Zúñiga, Co-PIXimena Zúñiga, Co-PIUniversity of MassachusettsUniversity of Massachusetts

Multiversity Intergroup Research Multiversity Intergroup Research ProjectProject

Supported by the W.T. Supported by the W.T. Grant Grant

and Ford Foundationsand Ford Foundations

CollaboratorsCollaborators

Arizona State University - TempeArizona State University - Tempe

Occidental College - Los AngelesOccidental College - Los Angeles

Syracuse University - SyracuseSyracuse University - Syracuse

University of California - San DiegoUniversity of California - San Diego

University of Maryland - College ParkUniversity of Maryland - College Park

University of Massachusetts - AmherstUniversity of Massachusetts - Amherst

University of Michigan - Ann ArborUniversity of Michigan - Ann Arbor

University of Texas - AustinUniversity of Texas - Austin

University of Washington - SeattleUniversity of Washington - Seattle

Today’s sessionToday’s session

Goals Goals

IGD: Definition, theory, processIGD: Definition, theory, process

Research study: Framework and design Research study: Framework and design

Findings: Quantitative and qualitativeFindings: Quantitative and qualitative

Implications for leveraging of diversityImplications for leveraging of diversity

Take-away applicationsTake-away applications

Primary GoalsPrimary Goals

Share results of MIGR study, focusing on: Share results of MIGR study, focusing on:

• Does intergroup dialogue make a Does intergroup dialogue make a difference? difference?

• How and for whom?How and for whom?

• What is the evidence?What is the evidence?

Link to conference theme: Diversity & Link to conference theme: Diversity & EducationEducation

• Benefits of IGDBenefits of IGD

• Translational practicesTranslational practices

Intergroup Dialogue: DefinitionIntergroup Dialogue: Definition

Intergroup dialogue (IGD) is Intergroup dialogue (IGD) is

an educational model that involves an educational model that involves

bringing students together bringing students together

from two or more social identity groups from two or more social identity groups

in a small co-learning environment.in a small co-learning environment.

Intergroup Dialogue: TheoryIntergroup Dialogue: Theory

Social psychological traditionsSocial psychological traditions

Allport’s contact hypothesis Allport’s contact hypothesis equal status, cooperative, meaningful, equal status, cooperative, meaningful, sustained, sanctioned by authoritiessustained, sanctioned by authorities

Sherif; Gaertner & DovidioSherif; Gaertner & Dovidiosuperordinate identity; superordinate identity;

recategorizationrecategorization

Tajfel; Gaertner & DovidioTajfel; Gaertner & Dovidiosocial identity; dual identity modelsocial identity; dual identity model

Intergroup Dialogue: TheoryIntergroup Dialogue: Theory

Social justice education foundationsSocial justice education foundations

BellBellSocial justice as process and goalSocial justice as process and goal

FreireFreireAgents co-responsible for creating changeAgents co-responsible for creating change

Collins; YoungCollins; YoungUnderstanding of complexity of power,Understanding of complexity of power,

privilege, and difference from personalprivilege, and difference from personaland structural perspectivesand structural perspectives

Intergroup Dialogue: Synthesis Intergroup Dialogue: Synthesis of frameworks and theoryof frameworks and theory

IGD comprises:IGD comprises:

Meaningful, sustained contactMeaningful, sustained contactCo-engagement in common activitiesCo-engagement in common activitiesSpecific attention to intergroup power, Specific attention to intergroup power,

conflict, and alliance buildingconflict, and alliance buildingPreservation of group identitiesPreservation of group identitiesExploration of both commonalities andExploration of both commonalities and

differencesdifferences

Intergroup Dialogue: Structure Intergroup Dialogue: Structure & Process& Process

Equal number of students from social Equal number of students from social identity groups; maximum n = 16 identity groups; maximum n = 16 

4 stage curriculum facilitated by two trained 4 stage curriculum facilitated by two trained facilitators, one from each identity groupsfacilitators, one from each identity groups

Key processes: communication, critical Key processes: communication, critical reflection, and group workreflection, and group work

Intergroup Dialogue: GoalsIntergroup Dialogue: Goals

Learn aboutLearn about: :

Perspectives within and between Perspectives within and between

social identity groups social identity groups

Life experiences of members of Life experiences of members of

different social groupsdifferent social groups

Power and inequality, and their effectsPower and inequality, and their effects

on different social identity on different social identity groupsgroups

Intergroup Dialogue: GoalsIntergroup Dialogue: Goals

Learn how toLearn how to::

Critically examine and dialogue about Critically examine and dialogue about differencesdifferences

Collaborate and work across differencesCollaborate and work across differences

Questions guiding this Questions guiding this multiversity studymultiversity study

What are the effects of an intergroup What are the effects of an intergroup dialogue course on cognitive, dialogue course on cognitive, relational and action oriented relational and action oriented outcomes of students? outcomes of students?

What processes -- psychological, What processes -- psychological, communicative -- facilitate the communicative -- facilitate the successful achievement of these successful achievement of these outcomes? outcomes?

Research study: IGD as a field Research study: IGD as a field experimentexperiment

Random assignment to groupsRandom assignment to groups

Standardized curriculumStandardized curriculum

26 contact hours, across an 26 contact hours, across an entire semester or quarterentire semester or quarter

26 race and 26 gender dialogues26 race and 26 gender dialogues

Research study: Design featuresResearch study: Design features

Longitudinal, randomized approachLongitudinal, randomized approach

Mixed methods: quantitative, qualitativeMixed methods: quantitative, qualitative

3 comparison groups3 comparison groups

Coordination across diverse campuses Coordination across diverse campuses (large public and small private, (large public and small private, regionally distributed)regionally distributed)

Research: DesignResearch: Design

Post-test

Post-test

Pretest

Pretest

INTERGROUP DIALOGUE

1 yr Delayed Posttest

1 yr DelayedPosttest

Dialogue groupDialogue group

Wait list control groupWait list control group

Post-test

Pretest

1 yrDelaye

d Posttes

t

Comparison groupComparison group

SOCIAL SCIENCE CLASS

Research: SampleResearch: Sample

Results to be reported are based on N = 1028Results to be reported are based on N = 1028

23 race/ethnicity dialogue experiments23 race/ethnicity dialogue experiments

19 gender dialogue experiments19 gender dialogue experiments

22%

27%24%

27%

White Men

WhiteWomenMen of Color

Women ofColor

22%

27%

25%

26%

Dialogue n = 529 Wait list control n = 499Wait list control n = 499

Research: Conceptual ModelResearch: Conceptual Model

PROCESSES

Communication

Socio-Cognitive

Affective

OUTCOMES

Intergroup Understanding

Relational

Action

I

G

D

Research: Outcome measuresResearch: Outcome measures

Intergroup understanding:Intergroup understanding:Social identity engagementSocial identity engagement

Causal attributions for inequality and Causal attributions for inequality and povertypoverty

Relational outcomes:Relational outcomes:Intergroup empathyIntergroup empathy

Motivation to bridge differencesMotivation to bridge differences

Action outcomes:Action outcomes:ConfidenceConfidenceFrequencyFrequency

Research: Process measuresResearch: Process measuresA focus on empathyA focus on empathy

Research questions:Research questions:

How do students talk about empathy? How do students talk about empathy? What attributions do they make about What attributions do they make about empathy?empathy?

Qualitative data to be derived from:Qualitative data to be derived from:

500 final student papers500 final student papers240 interviews240 interviews

Videotapes of 3 sessions in 24 dialogue groupsVideotapes of 3 sessions in 24 dialogue groups

Research: Preliminary results on Research: Preliminary results on empathyempathy

Coding dimensions (student final papers):Coding dimensions (student final papers):

Attributions for developing empathy Attributions for developing empathy

across individuals and across across individuals and across groupsgroups

within groupwithin group

Empathy as an engaged processEmpathy as an engaged process

Interpersonal empathy to intergroup empathyInterpersonal empathy to intergroup empathy

Research: Empathy across Research: Empathy across individuals/groupsindividuals/groups

Hearing new, novel and often challenging Hearing new, novel and often challenging information on standpoint experiences from information on standpoint experiences from others who are racially different in dialogue:others who are racially different in dialogue:

White participants described hearing stories White participants described hearing stories of racial and ethnic profiling from peers of of racial and ethnic profiling from peers of color in the intergroup dialogue as eye color in the intergroup dialogue as eye opening.opening.

Almost all instances of empathy across Almost all instances of empathy across groups from hearing novel (to the listener) groups from hearing novel (to the listener) personal stories were white students.personal stories were white students.

Research: Empathy within groupResearch: Empathy within group

Occurred most often in Caucus groups:Occurred most often in Caucus groups:

people of color recognizing similarpeople of color recognizing similar

experiences and feelings across experiences and feelings across

ethnic and racial groups of color;ethnic and racial groups of color;

led to ingroup empathy for people of led to ingroup empathy for people of color.color.

Research: Interpersonal to intergroup Research: Interpersonal to intergroup empathyempathy

Description of empathy at the personal level Description of empathy at the personal level with connection to larger society and social with connection to larger society and social identity groups.identity groups.

Intergroup cognitive empathy was more Intergroup cognitive empathy was more prevalent. No longer saw minority opinions prevalent. No longer saw minority opinions as irrational as once before.as irrational as once before.

Intergroup emotional empathy was less Intergroup emotional empathy was less prevalent. Increased viewing of others as prevalent. Increased viewing of others as having feelings just as own ingroup does.having feelings just as own ingroup does.

Research: Empathy as engaged Research: Empathy as engaged processprocess

Involves active listening, openness, and Involves active listening, openness, and willingness to ask questions and risk challenges.willingness to ask questions and risk challenges.

Viewed empathy as an action or choice beyond Viewed empathy as an action or choice beyond witnessing and silent empathizing. Compelled witnessing and silent empathizing. Compelled to express across and within groups. to express across and within groups.

Ambivalence and awareness about the risks and Ambivalence and awareness about the risks and dynamics of expressing empathy in and across dynamics of expressing empathy in and across groups.groups.

Summary of findingsSummary of findings

Quantitative measures/Outcomes:Quantitative measures/Outcomes:Increased understandingIncreased understandingRelational bridgingRelational bridgingBehavioral changesBehavioral changes

Qualitative measures/Process:Qualitative measures/Process:Increased empathy both Increased empathy both

withinwithinand across groupsand across groups

Does IGD work for everyone?Does IGD work for everyone?

IGD was effective for all four demographic IGD was effective for all four demographic groups; both privileged and subordinate groups; both privileged and subordinate groups; sometimes the effects were larger for groups; sometimes the effects were larger for white men.white men.

IGD was effective for both race and gender IGD was effective for both race and gender dialogue topics, although more effects dialogue topics, although more effects emerged for race dialogues.emerged for race dialogues.

Implications: Why is this research Implications: Why is this research important?important?

The findings:The findings: underscore the educational value of underscore the educational value of engaging diversity on the college campus. engaging diversity on the college campus. Results reinforce the argument presented in Results reinforce the argument presented in the Supreme Court cases, that diversity the Supreme Court cases, that diversity helps prepare students to participate in helps prepare students to participate in inclusive democracy – deepens learning; inclusive democracy – deepens learning; fosters sense of responsibility and efficacy.fosters sense of responsibility and efficacy.speak to the value of classroom speak to the value of classroom assessment and pedagogical innovation in assessment and pedagogical innovation in higher education.higher education.extend traditional social psychological extend traditional social psychological theories of prejudice reduction.theories of prejudice reduction.

Application: Leveraging diversity Application: Leveraging diversity at at

your home institutionyour home institution

Small group discussions:Small group discussions:

A. Pedagogy —A. Pedagogy — dialogue applications in dialogue applications in thethe

classroomclassroom

B. Assessment — use of project instrumentsB. Assessment — use of project instruments

to measure climate to measure climate

C. Qualitative outcomes — use of studentC. Qualitative outcomes — use of student

assignments as indicators/interventionsassignments as indicators/interventions

Grutter v. Bollinger Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)(2003)

Diversity is a compelling national Diversity is a compelling national interestinterest

““..diversity promotes learning ..diversity promotes learning outcomes and better prepares outcomes and better prepares students for an increasingly diverse students for an increasingly diverse workforce, for society, and for the workforce, for society, and for the legal profession.”legal profession.”

-Justice Sandra Day O’Connor-Justice Sandra Day O’Connor

Thank You!Thank You!

www.sitemaker.umich.edu/migrwww.sitemaker.umich.edu/migr