Leveraging Educational Benefits of Diversity through Intergroup Dialogue (IGD)

1. Ximena Zúñiga Jaclyn Rodriguez Univ Mass Amherst Occidental College Delia S. Saenz Anna Yeakley Arizona State Univ Occidental College Kathleen Wong(Lau) Western Michigan Univ Leveraging Educational Benefits of Diversity through Intergroup Dialogue (IGD)

2. Multiversity Intergroup Research Project Patricia Gurin, PI University of Michigan Ratnesh Nagda, Co-PI University of Washington Ximena Zúñiga, Co-PI University of Massachusetts Supported by the W.T. Grant and Ford Foundations

3. Collaborators Arizona State University - Tempe Occidental College - Los Angeles Syracuse University - Syracuse University of California - San Diego University of Maryland - College Park University of Massachusetts - Amherst University of Michigan - Ann Arbor University of Texas - Austin University of Washington - Seattle

4. Today’s session • Goals • IGD: Definition, theory, process • Research study: Framework and design • Findings: Quantitative and qualitative • Implications for leveraging of diversity • Take-away applications

5. Primary Goals • Share results of MIGR study, focusing on: • Does intergroup dialogue make a difference? • How and for whom? • What is the evidence? • Link to conference theme: Diversity & Education • Benefits of IGD • Translational practices

6. Intergroup Dialogue: Definition Intergroup dialogue (IGD) is an educational model that involves bringing students together from two or more social identity groups in a small co-learning environment.

7. Intergroup Dialogue: Theory Social psychological traditions Allport’s contact hypothesis equal status, cooperative, meaningful, sustained, sanctioned by authorities Sherif; Gaertner & Dovidio superordinate identity; recategorization Tajfel; Gaertner & Dovidio social identity; dual identity model

8. Intergroup Dialogue: Theory Social justice education foundations Bell Social justice as process and goal Freire Agents co-responsible for creating change Collins; Young Understanding of complexity of power, privilege, and difference from personal and structural perspectives

9. Intergroup Dialogue: Synthesis of frameworks and theory IGD comprises: Meaningful, sustained contact Co-engagement in common activities Specific attention to intergroup power, conflict, and alliance building Preservation of group identities Exploration of both commonalities and differences

10. Intergroup Dialogue: Structure & Process Equal number of students from social identity groups; maximum n = 16  4 stage curriculum facilitated by two trained facilitators, one from each identity groups Key processes: communication, critical reflection, and group work

11. Intergroup Dialogue: Goals Learn about: Perspectives within and between social identity groups Life experiences of members of different social groups Power and inequality, and their effects on different social identity groups

12. Intergroup Dialogue: Goals Learn how to: Critically examine and dialogue about differences Collaborate and work across differences

13. Questions guiding this multiversity study What are the effects of an intergroup dialogue course on cognitive, relational and action oriented outcomes of students? What processes -- psychological, communicative -- facilitate the successful achievement of these outcomes?

14. Research study: IGD as a field experiment Random assignment to groups Standardized curriculum 26 contact hours, across an entire semester or quarter 26 race and 26 gender dialogues

15. Research study: Design features Longitudinal, randomized approach Mixed methods: quantitative, qualitative 3 comparison groups Coordination across diverse campuses (large public and small private, regionally distributed)

16. Research: Design Dialogue group Post- test 1 yr Delayed Posttest Pretest INTERGROUPDIALOGUE Wait list control group Post- test 1 yr Delayed Posttest Pretest Comparison group 1 yr Delayed Posttest Pretest SOCIAL SCIENCE CLASS Post- test

17. Research: Sample Results to be reported are based on N = 1028 23 race/ethnicity dialogue experiments 19 gender dialogue experiments Dialogue n = 529 Wait list control n = 499

18. Research: Conceptual Model PROCESSES Communication Socio-Cognitive Affective I G D OUTCOMES Intergroup Understanding Relational Action

19. Research: Outcome measures Intergroup understanding: Social identity engagementCausal attributions for inequality and poverty Relational outcomes:Intergroup empathyMotivation to bridge differences Action outcomes: ConfidenceFrequency

20. Research: Process measuresA focus on empathy Research questions: How do students talk about empathy? What attributions do they make about empathy? Qualitative data to be derived from: 500 final student papers 240 interviews Videotapes of 3 sessions in 24 dialogue groups

21. Research: Preliminary results on empathy Coding dimensions (student final papers): Attributions for developing empathy across individuals and across groups within group Empathy as an engaged process Interpersonal empathy to intergroup empathy

22. Research: Empathy across individuals/groups Hearing new, novel and often challenging information on standpoint experiences from others who are racially different in dialogue: White participants described hearing stories of racial and ethnic profiling from peers of color in the intergroup dialogue as eye opening. Almost all instances of empathy across groups from hearing novel (to the listener) personal stories were white students.

23. Research: Empathy within group Occurred most often in Caucus groups: people of color recognizing similar experiences and feelings across ethnic and racial groups of color; led to ingroup empathy for people of color.

24. Research: Interpersonal to intergroup empathy Description of empathy at the personal level with connection to larger society and social identity groups. Intergroup cognitive empathy was more prevalent. No longer saw minority opinions as irrational as once before. Intergroup emotional empathy was less prevalent. Increased viewing of others as having feelings just as own ingroup does.

25. Research: Empathy as engaged process Involves active listening, openness, and willingness to ask questions and risk challenges. Viewed empathy as an action or choice beyond witnessing and silent empathizing. Compelled to express across and within groups. Ambivalence and awareness about the risks and dynamics of expressing empathy in and across groups.

26. Summary of findings Quantitative measures/Outcomes: Increased understanding Relational bridging Behavioral changes Qualitative measures/Process: Increased empathy both within and across groups

27. Does IGD work for everyone? IGD was effective for all four demographic groups; both privileged and subordinate groups; sometimes the effects were larger for white men. IGD was effective for both race and gender dialogue topics, although more effects emerged for race dialogues.

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

29. Application: Leveraging diversity at your home institution Small group discussions: A. Pedagogy — dialogue applications in the classroom B. Assessment — use of project instruments to measure climate C. Qualitative outcomes — use of student assignments as indicators/interventions

30. Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) Diversity is a compelling national interest “..diversity promotes learning outcomes and better prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce, for society, and for the legal profession.” -Justice Sandra Day O’Connor

31. Thank You!www.sitemaker.umich.edu/migr