80 Group UOrkApproachesandMethods

personal experience, which can educate dominant culture listeners but exploit thespeakers. Social workers must insure that intergroup dialogue adheres to the two

core values outlined in the StandardsJOrSocialUOrk PracticewithGroups:rigorouslyrespect the autonomy, worth, and dignity of each group participant and remem-ber that the goal of the group is to create a socially just society (Association for theAdvancement of Social Work with Groups, 2006).

Documenting the effectiveness of intergroup dialogue through rigorousresearch is a second challenge. Initial effectiveness data have been anecdotal orcase examination. Research rigor should be improved and should examine inter-

group dialogue's effectiveness for dominant and non-dominant participants, itsflexibility across multiple settings, and its limitations (Dessel et aI., 2006).

References

Allport, G. W (1979). The natwe of prgudice(25th Anniversary ed.). Reading, IvIA: Addison-Wesley.Originally published in 1954.

Alvarez, A. R., & Cabbil, L. (2001). The MELD program: Promoting personal change and social

justice through a year-long multicultural group experience. Social UVrkwith Groups,24(1), 3-20.Association for the Advancement of Social work with Groups. (2006). StandardsjOr Social UVrkPractice

with Groups.Retrieved August 14,2007 from http://www.aaswg.org/Standards/standards

Bargal, D. (2004). Groups for reducing intergroup conflict. In C. 0. Garvin, 1. M. GUlierrez, &M.J. Galinsky (Eds.), Handbook of socialwork with groups (pp. 292-306). New York: Guilford Press.

Corey, M. S., & Corey, G. (2006). Processand practice with groups (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: ThomsonBrooks/Cole.

Dessel, A., Rogge, M. E., & Garlington, S. B. (2006). Using group dialogue to promote social justiceand change. SocialUbrk, 51(4), 303-315.

Nagda, B. A, Kim, C., & Truelove, Y. (2004). Learning about difference, learning with others, learn-ing to transgress. Joumal tif Social/ssues, 60,195-214.

Nagda, B. A., Spearmon, M. L., Holley, 1. C., Harding, S., Balossone, M. 1., Moise-Swanson, D., &

De Mello, S. (1999). Intergroup dialogues: An innovative approach to teaching about diversityand justice in social work programs. JOllmaljOr HigherEducation,35(3), 433-449.

Pettigrew,T. E (1998).Intergroup contact theory.Annual&viewof Psychology,49, 65-86.

Roden borg, N. A., & Huynh, N. (2006). On overcoming segregation: Social work and intergroupdialogue. SocialUVrkwitlz GroupJ;29(1), 27 44.

Schoem, D., Hurtado. S., Sevig, T., Chesler, 1\1.,& Sumida, S. H. (200]). Intergroup dialogue: Democracyat workin theory and practice. In D. Schoem,&S. Hurtado (Eds.),/ntngrollpdialogue:Deliberativedell/oc-roryin school,college,tOll/mulliry,alldworkplace.Ann Arbor,MI: Universityof Michigan Press.

Zuniga, x., Nagda, B. A., & Sevig, 1: D. (2002). Intergroup dialogues: An educational mode] forcultivating engagement across differences.EquiryandErcetlencein Education,35( I), 7-17.

IntergroupDialogue: Overview 81

communication and relationships, and promote social change (Alvarez & Cabbil,200 I; Miller & Donner, 2000; Rodenborg & Huynh, 2006). Dialogue is a processof exploring one's own perceptions, values, and experiences, and communicatingthem without either forcing them on others or conforming, as a way to createmeaning between people (Bohm, 1992). Intergroup dialogue is a facilitated groupexperience that is designed to provide a safe space for participants to address divi-sive social issues (Dessel, Rogge, & Garlington, 2006). Intergroup dialogue mayincorporate learning or experiential material, and engages participants in listen-ing, speaking, reflecting on one's own views, and learning about the perspectivesof others (Herzig & Chasin, 2006). Such dialogue involves processes of apprecia-tion of difference, engaging self, critical self-reflection, and alliance building(Nagda, 2006). It may also address cultural differences and power imbalances.

Group work pays close attention to participants' personal, cultural, and socialidentities and dialogues are often co-facilitated by trained facilitators who mayrepresent the social or cultural identities of the groups involved (Brown & Mistry,2005; Nagda, 2006). The development of group norms is also addressed throughthe use of established dialogue agreements (Alvarez & Cabbil, 200 I; Herzig &Chasin, 2006). Convening and facilitating intergroup dialogues combines thesocial work micro skills of critical self-analysis and relational engagement withmacro skills of systemic and structural change (Dessel et aI., 2006). The practice ofintergroup dialogue builds upon both the interactional group work model that seekscommon ground between individual and group needs (Gitterman & Shulman,2005) and social action group work that promotes empowerment and social change(Breton, 1995).

Social work with groups has a historical yet under recognized purpose of link-ing group work with social change (Alvarez & Cabbil, 2001). Intergroup dialogueis employed in academic, community, and international settings to address issuessuch as racism, interethnic conflict, and civic participation (Dessel et aI., 2006).The National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation identified four primaryintentions of dialogue: exploration, conflict transformation, decision making, andcollaborative action. The Public Conversations Project has identified goals ofintergroup dialogue that include thoughtful speaking and listening before respond-ing, mutual recognition of the authenticity of others, an inquiring stance, anda sense of safety, security and trust (Herzig & Chasin, 2006). The United NationsDevelopment Programme's (UNDP) Democratic Dialogue Prqject described thegoals of their international dialogues as dealing with critical sociopolitical events,addressing challenges of the times, and promoting long-term change.

Groups are a social microcosm of the larger society and successful intergroupcontact has been shown to improve intergroup relationships (Brown & Mistry,2005). Stages of group process inform how a group functions and illuminate thepowerful effects of addressing private issues in a public setting (Drumm, 2006).Allport's (1954/1979) contact hypothesis stated that intergroup contact results inpositive effects when four conditions are present: (I) equal group status within thegroup encounter, (2) common goals (3) cooperative interactions; and (4) supportof those with social influence and power. Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) found that

Intergroup Dialogue: OverViewAdrienneDessei

Intergroup dialogue is all innovative and versatile non-therapeutic group workapproach that social worl<ers can use to reduce prejudice and conflict, improve

82 GroupMiJrkApproachesandMethods

change occurs through learning about outgroups, the opportunity for reappraisaland re-categorization of outgroups, the generation of empathy and positive emo-tion, and the potential for friendships.

Intergroup contact that provides opportunities for "self-revealing interactions" hasbeen shown to facilitate superordinate identity formation and reduce bias (Gaertner,Dovidio, & Bachman, 1996, p. 271). Dasgupta and Rivera (2006) found that theactivation of conscious egalitarian beliefs and intention to control prejudicialbehaviors can mediate the relationship between automatic prejudice and biasedbehavior. Furthermore, the provision of a safe and positive opportunity for inter-actions between different groups may reduce the anxiety and negative attitudesdominant groups have about marginalized groups. Members of non-dominantgroups have also reported positive experiences from participating in intergroupeducation and dialogue.

Interventions that seek to educate and promote self-reflection and empathy,manipulate ingroup and outgroup perceptions, and facilitate intergroup contactand its impact on social identity roles and potential for cross-group friendships havebeen shown to achieve prejudice reduction through attitude change. Studies in aca-demic settings have shown that dialogue participation has increased white students'perspective taking and sense of commonality with students of color, politicalinvolvement, and views of differences as compatible with democracy. For studentsof color, dialogue participation has been related to perceiving less intergroup divi-siveness and holding more positive views of conflict, as well as increased positiverelationships with white students (Nagda & Zuniga, 2003). Effects for all studentshave included learning about the perspectives of people from other social groups,valuing new viewpoints, understanding the impact of social group membership onidentity, gaining increased awareness of social inequalities, and developing analyti-cal problem-solving skills, leadership, and cultural awareness (Hurtado, 2005).Results of dialogues in community and international settings have included break-down of stereotypes, facilitation of personal relationships, the establishment of trustand consensus building leading to critical social policy development, and commit-ment to social change (Alvarez & Cabbil, 200 I; Diez-Pinto, 2004).

The first challenge is to contend with power differentials between majorityand marginalized groups. Group work practitioners must take into accountinherent privilege and systemic imbalances of power, and their implications forintergroup relationships, when designing and facilitating intergroup dialogues(Brown & Mistry, 2005). The second task is to improve research on intergroupdialogue outcomes. This requires collaboration between dialogue practitionersand researchers, and support lor such work from funding sources. Improvedresearch might include studies that use representative samples and randomassignment and discuss response rates, attrition and social desirability bias, theuse of well-established dialogue intervention protocols and measurement instru-ments, and employment of rigorous qualitative analysis methods. The finalchallenge for intergroup dialogue is to expand its potential in both research andpractice in order to foster non-traditional means of resolving societal oppression,conflict and violence.

IntergroupDialogue: Principles83

References

Allport, G. (1979). Tht natureof prgudice(25th Anniversary ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Originally published in 1954.

Alvarez, A., & Cabbil, L. (200 I). The MELD program: Promoting personal change and social justice

through a year-long multicultural group experience. SocialWInkwith Groups,24(1),3-20.Bohm,D. (1992). Changingconsciousness:Exploringthehiddensourceof thesocial,political, andenvironmental

crisesfacing ourworld. San Francisco: Harper.Breton,M. (1995).The potential for social action in groups. Social\o1l1rkwith Groups,18(2/3),5-13.Brown, A., & Mistry, T. (2005). Group work with "mixed membership" groups: Issues of race and

gender.SocialWorkwith GroupS,28(3/4), 133-148.Dasgupta, N., & Rivera, L. (2006). From automatic antigay prejudice to behavior: The moderating

role of conscious beliefs about gender and behavioral control. }ournal of Personaliryand Social

Psychology,91(2), 268-280.Dessel, A., Rogge, M., & Garlington, S. (2006). Using intergroup dialogue to promote social justice

and change. Social Work,51(4), 303-315. .Diez-Pinto,E. (2004). VisionGuatnnala1998-2000: Building bridgesof trust.New York:United Nations

Development Programme. RetrievedJuly 31,2006 from http:/ 1democraticdialoguenetwork.orgldocuments/view.pl?s= 13;ss=;t=;Lid=263

Drumm, K. (2006).The essentialpower of group work. SocialWorkwith Groups,29(2/3), 17-31.Gaertner, S., Dovidio, j., & Bachman, B. (1996). Revisitingthe contact hypothesis:The induction of

a common ingroup identity. International}ournal of Intercultural Relations,20(3/4), 271-290.

Gitterman, A., & Shulman, L. (2005).Mutualaidgroups,oulnerableandresilientpopulations,andthelift 'Jcte

(3rd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.

Herzig, M., & Chasin, L. (2006). Fosteringdialogueacrossdivides:A nuts and boltsguide.from the PublicConversationsPrqject. Retrieved June 10, 2006 from http://www.publicconversations.org/

jamsdownload.htmlHurtado, S: (2005).The next generation of diversity and intergroup relations.}ournal of SocialIssues,

61(3), 595-610.

Miller,j., & Donner, S. (2000).More than just talk:The use of racial dialoguesto combat racism. SocialWorkwith Groups,23(1),31-53.

Nagda, B. \2006). Breaking barriers, crossing borders, building bridges: Communication processes inintergroup dialogues. }ournal of SocialIssues,62(3),553-576.

Nagda, B. A., & Zuniga, X. (2003). Fostering meaningful racial engagement through intergroup dia-logues. GroupProcesses& IntergroupRelations,6(I), 111-128.

Pettigrew, T., & Tropp, L. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.}ournal of PersonaliryandSocialPsychology,90(5),751-783.

Rodenborg, N., & Huynh, N. (2006). On overcoming segregation: Social work and intergroup dia-

logue. SocialWI1rkwith Groups,29(I), 27-44.

Intergrou.p Dialogue: PrinciplesMona C. S. Schatz:.

Social group work plays a major role in building deeply meaningful and growth-filled opportUnities for group members. Dialogue groupS, developed as a group

approach to promote meaningful group interaction, starts where the group mem-bers are, letting the group develop from its own poiht of departure (Konokpa,

Encyclopedia of SocialWork with Groups

Edited byAlex GitterlllanandRobert Sahnon

I~~~o~;~;n~~~upNEWYORKAND lONDON