Leveraging Educational Benefits
of Diversity through
Intergroup Dialogue (IGD)
Ximena Zúñiga
Univ Mass Amherst
Jaclyn Rodriguez
Occidental College
Delia S. Saenz
Arizona State Univ
Anna Yeakley
Occidental College
Kathleen Wong(Lau)
Western Michigan Univ
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
Intergroup Dialogue: Goals
Learn how to:
Critically examine and dialogue about differences
Collaborate and work across differences
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?
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
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)
Research: Design
Dialogue group
Pretest
INTERGROUP
DIALOGUE
Posttest
1 yr
Delayed
Posttest
Wait list control group
Posttest
Pretest
1 yr
Delayed
Posttest
Comparison group
Pretest
SOCIAL
SCIENCE CLASS
Posttest
1 yr
Delayed
Posttest
Research: Sample
Results to be reported are based on N = 1028
23 race/ethnicity dialogue experiments
19 gender dialogue experiments
White Men
26
%
25
%
22
%
27
%
Dialogue n = 529
White
Women
Men of Color
Women of
Color
27% 22%
24%
27%
Wait list control n = 499
Research: Conceptual Model
I
G
D
PROCESSES
OUTCOMES
Communication
Intergroup
Understanding
Socio-Cognitive
Relational
Affective
Action
Research: Outcome measures
Intergroup understanding:
Social identity engagement
Causal attributions for inequality and poverty
Relational outcomes:
Intergroup empathy
Motivation to bridge differences
Action outcomes:
Confidence
Frequency
Research: Process measures
A 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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Summary of findings
Quantitative measures/Outcomes:
Increased understanding
Relational bridging
Behavioral changes
Qualitative measures/Process:
Increased empathy both within
and across groups
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.
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.
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
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
Thank You!
www.sitemaker.umich.edu/migr