1
“Being White in a Multicultural Society”:
Understanding Whiteness in an Intergroup Dialogue
By
Jeffrey G. Yeung
Thesis for the Degree of
Bachelor of Science in Psychology
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
University of Illinois
Urbana-Champaign, Illinois
2010
2
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT .........................................................................................................................3
INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................4
METHOD ..........................................................................................................................15
RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................18
DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................27
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................33
TABLES ............................................................................................................................39
APPENDIXES ...................................................................................................................44
3
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate students’ experiences in a 7-week intergroup
dialogue course focused on Whiteness. Using qualitative methodology, the author investigated
students’ (n = 6; 5 females and 1 male) general perceptions of the intergroup dialogue course, as
well as examined what they learned in the course. Participants engaged in semi-structured
interviews, and interview data were analyzed using thematic analysis. With regard to their
overall reactions to and perceptions of the course, three primary themes emerged from the data:
(a) perceptions of dialogue course pedagogy, (b) comments on racial composition of the class,
and (c) reactions to co-facilitators. Five themes also were identified about students’ learning
outcomes: (a) increased knowledge, (b) increased self-awareness, (c) social/relational outcomes,
(d) affective outcomes, and (e) behavioral outcomes. Implications of the findings and future
research directions are discussed.
4
Introduction
In recent years, the importance of racial and ethnic diversity on college campuses across
the nation has become a priority (Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2005;
Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pederson, & Allen, 1998). Even when institutions admit students and
hire employees from a range of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, campuses still struggle to
foster a safe and welcoming campus climate for racial and ethnic minorities. In lieu of such
aspirations, diversity initiatives are emerging on college campuses in hopes of addressing this
issue (Gurin, Nagda, & Lopez, 2004). For example, at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign (UIUC), Inclusive Illinois: One Campus, Many Voices (2010) is a campus diversity
initiative that aims to foster an inclusive and diverse campus environment. Inclusive Illinois
works to increase awareness and understanding about issues regarding social group identities,
such as race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, ability, and religion. Academic
departments, faculty, staff, and students are encouraged to commit to building an inclusive, safe
community that embraces and respects differences.
The Office of Inclusion and Intercultural Relations provides diversity and social justice
education programs for the campus community. One particular type of programming, relevant to
the present investigation, is a series of intergroup dialogue courses that meet for seven weeks
during the second-half of each semester. Approximately eight intergroup dialogue courses are
active every semester, and each enrolls approximately 12 to 18 students. Dialogic discussions
focus on topics related to social justice and social identity groups and include courses such as:
“Men/Women Dialogue,” “Race and Ethnicity Dialogue,” “Exploring Sexual Orientation,” and
“Being White in a Multicultural Society.” Although previous scholarship discusses the
effectiveness of such diversity programs (for example see Gurin, Nagda, & Lopez, 2004), I was
5
unable to identify empirical examination of intergroup dialogues that focus on Whiteness.
Because racism is a White problem (Neville, Worthington, & Spanierman, 2001), scholars in the
fields of education (e.g., Bell, 2003), psychology (e.g., Tatum, 1992; 1997), and sociology (e.g.,
Bonilla-Silva, 2001; 2003) urge investigation of White students’ beliefs and attitudes regarding
race, racism, and White privilege. Thus, in the present study, I examine White students’
experiences learning about issues linked to White racism in a 7-week intergroup dialogue titled,
Being White in a Multicultural Society.
In my review of the literature, I define intergroup dialogue and review relevant empirical
research. I also provide an overview of critical Whiteness studies scholarship that is relevant to
the particular dialogue course that I examined. This scholarship includes the invisibility and
normalcy of Whiteness and White privilege, White racial identity development, costs of racism
to Whites, and color-blind racial ideology. I conclude with the rationale and purpose of the
current investigation.
Intergroup Dialogue
According to the original creators and developers of intergroup dialogues at educational
institutions, Zuniga, Nagda, Chesler, and Cytron-Walker (2007) define intergroup dialogue as:
[…] an innovative practice in higher education that promotes student engagement across
cultural and social divides, fostering learning about social diversity and inequalities and
cultivating an ethos of social responsibility. This approach to diversity education on
college and university campuses responds to a growing need for educational practices
that prepares students to live, work, and lead in a complex, diverse, and stratified society
(2007, p. 1).
6
Broadly, intergroup dialogue allows a space for students to explore similarities and differences in
social group identities (e.g., gender, sexual orientation, race) while working on intergroup
conflict and social group identity (Zuniga et al., 2007). Dialogue courses typically involve semistructured topical discussions that are designed to facilitate communication and understanding
across students from different backgrounds (Nagda & Zuniga, 2003). More specifically,
intergroup dialogue courses bring together students from two or more different social identity
groups (Zuniga et al., 2007). Typically, two trained facilitators co-lead the group using a learning
model that incorporates cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. Co-facilitators typically
represent the social group identity composition of the dialogue participants. For example, in a
group about Black-Latino relations, one facilitator would represent each group.
Importantly, intergroup dialogue strives to create an environment that encourages critical
examination of power relations and structural inequalities (Nagda et al., 1999; Zuniga & Nagda,
2001). Co-facilitators use a critical-dialogic approach to explore similarities and differences
within, between, or among social identity groups. This approach depends on (a) sustained
communication and involvement that build bridges across differences and challenge participants
to engage fully in the process and (b) strong intergroup focus, which is the recognition that
membership in social identity groups results in different levels of advantages and disadvantages
within the system (Zuniga et al., 2007). A critical-dialogic approach differs from other campus
diversity courses and activities because it relies on intergroup dialogue as the vehicle for learning
about power relations, intergroup conflict, and intergroup issues.
The overarching goal of intergroup dialogue is to develop students’ abilities to work
across differences and to participate and engage in diverse university settings with later
application to a multicultural workplace, organize, and/or community (Zuniga et al., 2007). More
7
specific goals of intergroup dialogue include: consciousness raising, building relationships, and
strengthening individual and group social change (Nagda & Zungina, 2003; Zuniga et al., 2007).
A number of studies have supported the goal of consciousness raising, which refers to
awareness of one’s and other’s social identities in the context of structural inequality (Nagda &
Zungina, 2003; Zuniga et al., 2007). For instance, Nagda and colleagues (1999) examined the
experiences of 50 social work undergraduate students who took a required course that included
five intergroup dialogue class sessions. Using a mixed-methods design, they found that almost
all (93%) of the participants increased their learning about the experiences and perspectives of
people from other social group identities and increased their awareness of social inequalities—
two critical aspects of consciousness raising. Similarly, intergroup dialogue courses at Arizona
State University also have been found to increase students’ awareness of discrimination and
reduce their prejudice towards particular racial groups (e.g., Asians, African Americans, and
Jews; while reducing negative stereotypes towards African Americans, gays, lesbians, and
bisexuals, Asian Americans, White males, and males in general, which are related to
consciousness raising as well (Trevino, 2001). Moreover, a national longitudinal study of 4,403
students found that students who participated in an intergroup dialogue reported strong increases
in complex thinking skills (i.e., analytical problem-solving skills and attributional complexity),
leadership skills, cultural awareness, and the importance of being socially aware (Hurtado,
2005).
In addition to consciousness raising, scholars have found that participation in intergroup
dialogue has positive aspects on relationship building. Relationship building includes empathic
perspective taking (i.e., ability to understand multiple perspectives), communication across
differences, and having positive associations with conflict (Nagda & Zungina, 2003; Zuniga et
8
al., 2007). White students who engaged in cross-racial interactions in the context of intergroup
dialogue courses reported increases in perspective taking (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002;
Gurin, Nagda, & Lopez, 2004; Hurtado, 2005). In a quasi-experimental study with a matched
control group of undergraduate students, African American, Latino/a, and Asian American
students reported increases in positive relationships with White students, held more positive
views of conflict, and perceived less intergroup divisiveness four years after participating in an
intergroup dialogue course (Dessel & Rogge, 2008; Gurin, Peng, Lopez, & Nagda, 1999; Nagda
& Zuniga, 2003).
Another important outcome of intergroup dialogue courses relates to fostering social
change and social justice action among students. This is illustrated by commitments to prejudice
reduction and promoting and supporting diversity initiatives and polices (Nagda & Zungina,
2003; Zuniga et al., 2007). Increases in interest in politics, participation of campus political
activities, and importance of post-college civic activities were identified as outcomes of student
participation in intergroup dialogue (Dessel & Rogge, 2008; Gurin et al., 2002). Furthermore,
among undergraduate social work students, Nagda and colleagues (1999) found that 80%
reported (a) feelings of hope to challenge injustice and inequity and (b) exploring ways to take
action as important factors their learning; both factors are consistent with reducing injustice and
supporting multicultural practices (Dessel & Rogge, 2008).
Although empirical investigation of intergroup dialogue courses, outcomes, and programs
has increased in recent years, I did not locate any studies that focus specifically on Whiteness.
Because intergroup dialogue is a method of social justice education, examining how students
process the construct of Whiteness through intergroup dialogue will offer evidence to support
such courses and initiatives. White students oftentimes see diversity and multicultural issues as
9
something relevant only for racial and ethnic minorities (this course, thus, makes the message
more personally relevant) to dismantle racism and disrupt the status quo, and make the campus
environment truly more inclusive for all students, White students must be on board. Thus, the
present investigation focuses specifically on a course titled, Being White in a Multicultural
Society, to better understand the experiences of students enrolled in such a course. The
interdisciplinary study of Whiteness (referred to as critical Whiteness studies) addresses several
concepts that are relevant to students’ learning about the ways in which Whiteness operates
among themselves and/or other students within the campus community and larger society. In the
following section, I briefly discuss the field of critical ness studies in general, and then focus on
relevant concepts such as White privilege and color-blind racial ideology, which provide the
theoretical framework for the present investigation.
Critical Whiteness Studies
Traditionally, scholarship on race and racism has focused primarily on people of color
mostly due to the oppression that people of color face. However, recent developments across
academic disciplines have focused on the meaning of Whiteness, which originated the field of
critical Whiteness studies (CWS). Although the field is still in its youth, a number of scholars
have written works, reported empirical findings, created theories on Whiteness, and more. Some
core facets of critical Whiteness studies include, but are not limited to: White privilege (e.g.,
Jensen, 2005; McIntosh, 1988), White racial identity development (e.g., Hardiman, 1982; Helms,
1984, 1995; Rowe, Bennett, & Atkinson, 1994; Scott & Robinson, 2001); the costs of racism to
Whites (e.g., Goodman, 2001; Spanierman & Heppner, 2004), color-blind racial ideology
(Bonilla-Silva, 2001, 2003; Carr, 1997; Neville, Lilly, Duran, Lee, & Browne, 2000) and White
10
antiracism and allies (e.g., McKinney & Feagin, 2003; O’Brien, 2003). A brief overview of each
of these constructs is discussed in the following sections.
White Privilege
White privilege is defined as the unearned advantages of being White in a racially unjust
society which benefits Whites over people of color; it is also an expression of institutional power
that is largely unrecognized and invisible by the majority of White individuals (Neville,
Worthington, & Spanierman, 2001). For instance, McIntosh (1988) identified examples of White
privilege from her daily life that included: “I am never asked to speak for all the people of my
racial group,” “I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to ‘the person in charge,’ I will be facing a
person of my race,” and “I can choose blemish cover or bandages in ‘flesh’ color and have them
more or less match my skin.” McIntosh’s list of White privileges is an example of how White
people benefit more than their counterparts of color in a racially unjust world. She further calls
this her “invisible knapsack” of privileges which White people carry with them every day.
A quality of White privilege is the normalcy and invisibility of White privilege, which
McIntosh revealed through her observation of her own racial privileges. Wildman and Davis
(2008) addressed consequences of this quality of White privilege:
The invisibility of privilege strengthens the power it creates and maintains. The invisible
cannot be combated, and as a result privilege is allowed to perpetuate, regenerate, and recreate itself…Privilege is invisible only until looked for, but silence in the face of privilege
sustains its invisibility (p. 109).
Part of why White privilege (and Whiteness) is invisible is due to its normative nature. Norms
are often unseen, ignored, or unnoticed, which are often ideas, ideologies, actions, etc. that are
dominant and usually accepted. Because Whites are the dominant group in America (meaning
11
Whites disproportionally benefit from a racially stratified system), White privilege and
Whiteness are normalized due to its dominancy and therefore invisible and unnoticeable.
Because Whiteness is explored in an intergroup dialogue, the construct of White privilege
will likely emerged whether directly or indirectly. Students may highlight their racial privileges
when they engage in course readings and activities. On the other hand, White privilege can also
be unrecognized, minimized, and ignored in a dialogue because of its invisible and normative
nature. To address this concern, White racial identity development is another aspect of
Whiteness which can further our understanding of White privilege as well.
White Racial Identity Development
Scholars have conceptualized a number of different theoretical models or frameworks to
explain White racial identity development. Although not every model is identical, in general
most models are multidimensional and dynamic and address (a) perceptions of one’s own racial
group membership (i.e., White) and perceptions of other races (i.e., people of color); (b)
awareness of institutionalized racism and White privilege, and (c) White supremacist ideology
(Spanierman & Soble, 2009). These models are dependent on dissonance-inducing critical
incidents that bring an individual forward to more complex statuses or stages. Overall, the goals
of a healthy White racial identity development include increase of one’s critical consciousness of
racial issues, applying greater flexibility and complexity when handling racial matters, and
abandoning race-based entitlement (Helms, 1995).
Of a number of White racial identity development models, Helms’s White racial identity
development model has received the most empirical attention and has been most widely cited
(and will be the one described in this study). In a revision to her original 1984 model, Helms
(1995) explains that she did not intend to portray a developmental sequence of stages in her
12
model, but rather a theory of status as that are interactive and dynamic in nature where
individuals can exhibit more than one status concurrently.
Helms’s (1995) model of White racial identity development includes six statuses. The
contact status is defined by one’s denial or lack of awareness of White privilege, racism, and
institutionalized racism. The second status, disintegration, is when Whites start to develop racial
awareness, but are forced to choose between their own racial group and the larger moral issue
that stem from a racist society. Reintegration, the third status, is characterized by idealizing and
identifying with one’s own group while having anger and intolerances towards racial and ethnic
minorities. The fourth stage, pseudo-independent, is where Whites self-examine themselves and
question their definition of Whiteness and their justification of racism. In this stage, Whites
begin to abandon White superiority and may feel alienated from other Whites. Next, is the
immersion/emersion status where Whites are uncomfortable with their Whiteness and explore
how one defines racism and how one benefits from this system. The last status is autonomy,
which is often described as “racial self-actualization.” At this stage, Whites internalized a newly
defined White identity that confronts racism and oppression.
Understanding White racial identity development is a critical construct in this study
because students in the dialogue will identify as being White when the topic of understanding
Whiteness is discussed. Because race is a part of everyone’s identity, it influences how people
act and how people are perceived whether they identify with their race or not. In this case,
Helms’s model of White racial identity development can be a critical factor for understanding
White people and the construct of Whiteness as well as their awareness and understanding of
racism, which will be examined in this study.
Psychosocial Costs of Racism to Whites
13
Because White racism affects both dominant and subordinate groups in society, the costs
of racism to White individuals provides a framework to understand how oppression affects those
from the privileged group. For example, Goodman (2001) highlighted specific ways of how
people from privileged groups are negatively affected by oppression and how they can benefit
from the elimination of oppression. She described a range of costs of oppression to dominant
group individuals which include: psychological costs (i.e., lost of mental health and authentic
sense of self), social costs (i.e., loss and diminishment of relationships), intellectual costs (i.e.,
loss of developing full range of knowledge), moral and spiritual costs (i.e., loss of moral and
spiritual integrity), and material and physical costs (i.e., loss of safety, resources, and quality of
life). The goal of understanding these costs according to Goodman (2001) is not for dominant
group members to be punished, but to eliminate the affects of oppression on them and others and
to increase conditions that benefit both groups. The hope is for people from privileged groups to
reconceptualize and redefine oppression, for them to understand that oppression adversely affects
them as well as to those who are oppressed.
Spanierman and Heppner (2004) conceptualized the costs of racism to Whites as negative
cognitive, affective, and behavioral consequences that White individuals experience as a
dominant group member in a White supremacist system. They defined cognitive costs as
distortions of self (e.g., denying one’s racial privilege), reality (e.g., denying the existence of
racism), or others (e.g., relying on stereotypes). Affective costs included emotional responses to
racism (e.g., anger and sadness, guilt about one’s dominant position in a racially unjust society,
and fear of people of color). Last, behavioral costs to racism referred to limitations and
restrictions on one’s actions (i.e., censoring oneself so as not to appear racist). These costs can
14
influence how White individuals view race in society, which are linked to racial attitudes, as well
as to interracial and intraracial relationships.
Color-Blind Racial Ideology
Linked to cognitive costs of racism to Whites as well as the contact status of White racial
identity development, color-blind racial ideology has been theorized as a form of contemporary
racism that minimizes, distorts, and/or ignores the existence of race and institutional racism
(Bonilla-Silva, 2001, 2003; Carr, 1997; and Neville et al., 2000). It represents a set of beliefs that
race and racism are no longer relevant in the present society’s economic and social realities.
However, the reality of the racial stratification of resources that disadvantage racial and ethnic
minorities while advantaging Whites makes race and racism an issue that is relevant.
Endorsing this racial framework has been theorized to mean different things among
Whites and other racial and ethnic minorities (Neville, 2009; Neville, Worthington, &
Spanierman, 2001). For instance, at an institutional level, color-blind racial beliefs results in
maintaining the status quo which serves to legitimatize racism and protect White racial privileges
meanwhile disadvantaging other racial and ethnic minorities (Neville, 2009). Consistent with
Carr (1997) and Neville et al.’s (2000) empirical work, Whites are more likely to endorse higher
levels of color-blind racial beliefs than other racial and ethnic groups because the status quo
revolves around White privilege. This said, the heart of color-blind racial ideology serves to
camouflage and legitimize injustices in the U.S. by influencing people to support to status quo,
which results in tolerating injustice and structural inequalities (Neville, 2009).
Because a person’s racial ideology influences one’s attitudes and perceptions of race and
racism, it is important to consider color-blind racial ideology and its influences on discussions of
15
race, racism, and Whiteness. Racial ideology will definitely appear in an intergroup dialogue
because it is race focused and therefore has implications of how one sees race.
Purpose and Rationale of the Present Investigation
Because there is a lack of research on intergroup dialogue courses focused specifically on
Whiteness and the importance of assessing diversity education methods on college campuses, the
purpose of the current study was to conduct an empirical investigation of students’ experiences
in a 7-week intergroup dialogue course titled, Being White in a Multicultural Society.
Additionally, this study will address the importance for White students to examine their racial
identity as a means to dismantle racism and create a more inclusive campus for all. Specifically,
a qualitative method (specifically thematic analysis; Braun & Clarke, 2006), was utilized to
investigate how students in the intergroup dialogue learned about and understood Whiteness and
race(ism) during the course. This research has the potential to explain the processes by which
students examine their own and their peers’ Whiteness. My research questions were: (a) What
were students’ general perceptions and experiences in the dialogue class? and (b) What did
students learn after participating in an intergroup dialogue on Whiteness?
Method
Participants
Interviewees. Seven participants were interviewed in the initial sample. However, there
was only one Black female in the entire sample, which limited the amount of data from students
of color in the dialogue as compared to White students. This participant was excluded from the
final sample. Participants in the final sample (n = 6) consisted of five self-identified White
female undergraduates and one White male undergraduate enrolled in a 7-week Social Issues
Intergroup Dialogue Course titled, Being White in a Multicultural Society, at a large Midwestern
16
university. Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 21 (M = 19.67; SD = 1.21). From a demographic
questionnaire, a 6-point Likert type scale ranging from 1 (mostly racially not diverse) to (mostly
racially diverse) asked participants to report the racial diversity of their hometowns. Three
participants reported a score of 5 (i.e., racially diverse); three reported a score of 1 or 2 (mostly
not diverse). A similar 6 point-Likert type scale ranging from 1 (mostly not of the same race as
me) to 6 (mostly of the same race as me) asked participants to report the racial diversity of their
friends. Two participants reported a score of 6 (i.e., mostly of the same race as them); two
reported a score of 4 (i.e., same race as them); and, two reported a score of 1 or 2 (i.e., mostly not
of the same race as them). Highest level of parent/guardian education was at the master’s level
for four participants and two reported the bachelor’s degree as the parent/guardian’s highest level
of education.
Researchers. An Asian American male fourth-year undergraduate student majoring in
psychology was the primary researcher of this study. Because the primary researcher personally
knew one of the participants, one of the interviews was conducted by a White female first-year
doctoral student in counseling psychology. A White, Jewish female associate professor in
counseling psychology supervised the research project and served as an auditor at each step of
the design and analysis. The researchers all have an antiracist perspective, which includes the
belief that racism currently exists and that White students must be educated about institutional
racism and White privilege. These assumptions and biases were congruent with content and
material from the dialogue course syllabus and curriculum, which helped maintain a common
understanding during the interview process. Nonetheless, the interviewers worked hard to
maintain a warm and neutral stance during the interviews.
Measures
17
Demographic form. A brief demographic questionnaire completed by the participants
was used to collect information including, gender, race, ethnicity, age, year in school, and
participants’ hometown and family background.
Interview protocol. Interviews followed a semi-structured format (see appendix A for a
complete list of interview questions). Questions were developed through an extensive review of
the critical Whiteness literature and in consultation with the faculty supervisor. As recommended
in interview methods (Kvale, 1996), initial questions were utilized to develop rapport between
the interviewee and the interviewer. Later questions addressed participants’ potential color-blind
racial ideology, awareness and acceptance of White privilege, racial identity development, and
related aspects of being White in a multiracial society. Additional questions were related to the
intergroup dialogue format of the course and its particular focus on Whiteness. The interviewer
requested elaboration with follow-up prompts when appropriate.
Procedures
Recruiting participants. Participants in this study were recruited from a 7-week
intergroup dialogue course entitled, Being White in a Multicultural Society. The primary
investigator sent out a recruitment email to the entire class requesting participants to share their
experiences of the class in an interview. In return, a $5 gift card was given as a gift for their
participation. Seven students responded and were interviewed, but only six students were
included in the final sample.
Interview and transcription. Six semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were
conducted by the primary researcher (n = 5) and graduate student interviewer (n = 1) several
weeks after the conclusion of the course. Each was conducted in a private location, lasted
18
approximately 60 to 90 minutes, and was audio recorded. Audio recordings were transcribed
verbatim and identifying information was removed from the transcripts.
Data Analysis
Following guidelines suggested by Braun and Clarke (2006), I used thematic analysis to
analyze the interview data. First, the primary researcher reviewed all transcripts against the audio
recordings to ensure accuracy during transcription. The primary researcher then individually
examined each interview and noted initial impressions. Next, tentative themes were developed
from comments and initial impressions. Themes are statements of meaning that recur throughout
the data (Ely, Anzul, Friedman, Garner, & McCormack-Steinmetz, 1991). Through consultation
with his faculty research advisor and examination of two related investigations (Sammons &
Speight, 2008; Spanierman et al, 2008), the primary investigator reexamined and reevaluated the
themes and created final theme names. Once final themes were identified from all transcripts, the
researcher compared themes across the six interviews. Themes that captured concepts regarding
intergroup dialogue and/or Whiteness, and recurred in more than one interview, were retained for
purposes of this investigation. Finally, themes were recategorized into major themes and
subthemes.
Results
This section will address the themes that emerged from the data by the two research
questions. Primary themes for each research question will be presented with subthemes.
Additionally, direct quotations and paraphrases from the interviews will be included to illustrate
the themes.
Research Question 1: What were students’ general perceptions and experiences to the
dialogue class?
19
Three broad themes were identified through thematic analysis about participants’ general
reactions to the intergroup dialogue class: (a) perceptions of dialogue course pedagogy, (b)
comments on the racial composition of the class, and (c) reactions to co-facilitators. Each was
divided into subthemes to better explain and portray the detail and nuances of participants’
reaction to the dialogue class. See Table 1.
Perceptions of dialogue class pedagogy. Many perceptions towards the dialogue class
structure from the participants emerged. Generally, respondents reported on how the dialogue
class created an environment which allowed for multiple perspectives to be shared, expressed,
and heard. Also, some commented on how the dialogue process contributed to learning and how
the dialogue format is suitable for discussion and education on social justice issues.
Participants commented on the atmosphere and environment of the intergroup dialogue.
One female participant mentioned how the dialogue structure of the class allowed space for
different perspectives. Moreover, one male student elaborated about how the atmosphere was
comfortable for self-disclosure. These factors according to another female student fostered
sharing which also led to connecting others’ experiences with oneself—a vital component in the
intergroup dialogue process.
In terms of how the dialogue process aids in learning, two White female participants
explained they learned through the dialogue process and the importance of having peer group
dialogue was important. For instance, one of the White female participants said,
Well, it’s not set up in a way where you feel like you’re taking notes and learning
something, like and this is what you’re supposed to learn, when it’s with your peers, it’s
more like you just learn through the process rather than like in the sense where you’re
supposed to learn this and this and like a check mark list, you know? The way we just
20
talked—it was just like learning just happened, you know? It’s kinda like, you didn’t
mean to learn it but you did through the process, you know?
The other White female student reported,
I learn through dialogue, that’s really helpful for me. And I learn from peers. I think that
if we’re going to be talking about our experiences, it should be the most similar
experiences possible, and I think age generation does make you more similar. So I feel
like you can learn more from the differences in your own age group and so that’s really
important.
All informants mentioned that the intergroup dialogue format and pedagogy of the course
is a suitable method for learning about social justice issues. For example one female said,
I think it’s [the dialogue format] like, probably the only way to teach a class like that,
‘cause if you just have someone lecturing like say, [the mixed-race facilitator] was
talking to us it would, to be honest, it would be a Black woman speaking to a bunch of
White kids about White privilege and that’s not a good way to get it across. When it’s
peers talking to each other, they’re more, they’re less likely to be resistant to what they’re
hearing.
Others commented on the reflection writing assignments to also be beneficial in their experience.
One female participant stated,
I’d say overall, it’s [the dialogue format] a pretty good format—like with the readings,
and then just discussing them. We had reflection papers. I found the reflection papers the
most helpful. They gave me time to think about what I was experiencing and then write
about it.
21
Another female participant added that although she did not like the writing papers, she found that
the papers were integral to her learning experience. In addition to the writing assignments, a
number of participants mentioned the course readings that impacted their learning. Specifically
they mentioned Peggy McIntosh’s (1988) “White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack”
and Frances Kendall’s (2006) book, Understanding White Privilege: Creating Pathways to
Authentic Relationships Across Race as additional factors that contributed to their overall
learning and experiences in the class.
Comments on the racial composition of the class. Participants commented on the racial
diversity of the class, specifically the racial backgrounds of their classmates and facilitators. In
regards to classmates’ racial backgrounds, all six respondents explained that having the two
Black students in the class added to the class discussion and dialogue. For instance, when asked
to comment on the racial diversity of the class, one White female respondent said,
Pretty much everyone was just White. There were two Black girls, but they had a lot to
contribute and that was cool. They would say what they thought of White people and that
I guess that is a perspective I don’t get a lot.
Additionally, one White male commented on both the racial diversity of his classmates and the
two co-facilitators,
The [two] African American students who were in the class and [the mixed-race
facilitator] were equally open to talk about it. They were incredibly empathetic and … I
feel like most of the time we had the same feelings on stuff and for them it’s also to think
[sic] in their shoes like they’re looking at a bunch of White students talking about being
White and how they feel about racism. It’s a very unique position for them and one that
they’re not into, [sic] that an African American person doesn’t often encounter, so I mean
22
the racial makeup I think it only improved the class and I think we got a lot of good
perspectives….
In addition to commenting on the racial diversity of the class, some students wished the
class was more racially diverse. When asked whether the participant would change anything
about the class, one White female participant said,
I guess maybe having more ethnic diversity, or racial diversity in the class. We had and it
just ended up being this way but it was because I guess they had said that they class was
originally restricted to White students and that they had just opened it to more ethnicities
but they only had two African American students in there…it would have been nice to
have more of a mix, you know to really get to see, yeah you know there is this and a lot
of the times we ended up focusing on you know White student Black student relations
and I feel like there could have been so much more with you know, Asian students and
Native American students and Hispanic Students and … There could have been more like
explored if there were more people of different races….
Reactions to co-facilitators. Students also commented on the two co-facilitators of the
course. Generally, the participants had positive comments about the co-facilitators of the course.
One White male student reported that the facilitators’ diverse experiences contributed to the class
as well as how they fostered a comfortable environment in the classroom,
They both have very unique upbringings and brought very different things to the table …
both have very informative and insightful experiences to reflect on especially [the mixedrace facilitator] and it was a very good atmosphere they promoted a good sense of
community and comfort and they didn’t always agree on things either I think that’s
23
important. A big part about race is just agreeing to disagree and stuff I think I don’t think
either of them were ever offended and I don’t think they had an agenda to promote.
Some of the students also commented on both facilitators’ skills of facilitating the dialogue. For
example, one White female commented that the facilitators did a great job guiding the discussion
and allowing for processing to happen without it being forceful. Although there were positive
aspects when describing the facilitators’ skills, one White female felt that the facilitators could
have done a better job facilitating. She also felt that the facilitators had certain assumptions and
expectations that were one-sided which left her feeling frustrated and angry.
Research Question 2: What did students learn after participating in an intergroup dialogue
on Whiteness?
Five themes were identified when analyzing what students’ learned after taking an
intergroup dialogue course on Whiteness. They were: (a) increased knowledge, (b) increased
self-awareness, (c) social/relational outcomes, (d) affective outcomes, and (e) behavioral
outcomes. These themes were divided into subthemes to better elaborate and accurately present
participants’ outcomes and experiences in the class. See Table 2.
Increased knowledge. Students described what they learned during the intergroup
dialogue. Most participants mentioned learning about White privilege and institutional racism.
For example, one White female explained that she learned that being White is equated with
privilege and that White people should feel bad. “I wanna say, the class taught me to say,
privilege.” Other participants also showed increased understanding of unearned benefits or
privileges that Whites received. They mentioned course readings such as Kendall (2006) and
McIntosh (1988) as a contributor to their learning and understanding of White privilege.
24
Increased self-awareness. In addition to increases knowledge, participants also reported
increases in self-awareness. A number of participants mentioned that they had never thought
much about their own race or Whiteness prior to taking the course. For instance, one White
female said that she really did not know what Whiteness meant to her and that she had no idea
what it meant coming into the class.
As a result of the intergroup dialogue, students showed increased awareness of their
Whiteness, their own privileges, their own biases, and their own racial identity. For example, a
White female who stated that she did not gain much from the class due to prior courses and
knowledge, elaborated on her lack of awareness of her own White racial identity and how
Whiteness is the norm and often overseen:
I guess that’s one thing I didn’t really think about before the class, was me as a White
person. I thought of other peoples’ experiences as an ethnic minority but like, me being
White—I never really thought of it, you know? Yeah it’s, to me it was the norm I guess,
because that’s what I am, so, I never really thought of how my experience was different
because I was White…to me it’s normal.
Participants also recognized their own biases and stereotypes of people who are different from
them. One female explained the consequences and habit of stereotyping:
You know, some stereotypes have come from my experience and those are hard to get rid
of. And for me, I just have to stop and think why I have them and how I let them control
my opinions of people. Some stereotypes from me are really hard to lose.
Another White female student realized that she had negative thoughts about black men being
dangerous and intentionally avoided them, but she realized that White men can also be
dangerous as well. Increased racial identity development also emerged in participant interview.
25
For example, one female student explained, “I basically realized I don’t know myself and I need
to learn myself. And it’s a complete journey. And that was just stepping my feet in the water and
I’m still learning. I can’t define myself right now.” In other words, through this course, the
participant realized how little she thought of her own Whiteness and she learned that it takes time
for one to understand their own racial identity. This experience for her was the beginning of her
journey to understand her race. Another female interviewee explained how she “should be
thinking” about her race more than she does because it is a part of who she is.
Social and relational outcomes. Students also described how the class has affected them
socially and relationally. Most participants had additional discussions regarding race, being
White, or Whiteness with friends and roommates outside of the class. They described core
concepts with their peers and explained their experiences. One male participant commented that
when he brought up White privilege in a conversation, his finds would react negative and ask
why he needs to bring up such a topic. The participant realized how people often avoid the topic
of race or Whiteness. Similarly, a female participant explained her frustration with a close friend.
She stated, “It becomes really difficult to be able to be like, ‘I’m your best friend but you’re so
racially ignorant and it’s so difficult for me to have a conversation with you.’” Additionally,
another female participant commented on how she noticed how her family members held
negative stereotypes and prejudices as well. She noticed how different her dad’s generation is
compared to her. She labeled as racist, although it is not shown outside of the house, but rather
kept inside the house.
Affective responses. A range of affective reactions emerged from the interviews. When
asked to elaborate on what they felt when learning about White racial dominance, one female
26
(who has learned about such topics before) participant explained that she was angry and
embarrassed:
I was angry more than anything. It just feels so unfair, so unjust to see the ways these
policies were created so so long ago and yet their impacts are still being felt today. And
certain things are not changing and probably won’t change for a while. And it’s all geared
around like White privilege and that’s the dominant culture and what that means…and
yeah, so a lot of anger, a lot of embarrassment I would say just that we had this history in
this country of keeping other people down because they’re not White or they’re not
White enough.
Later in the interview she explained that after the class she also felt “less hostility” towards her
own White racial identity.
White guilt as a result of learning about White privileges and oppression and helplessness
were additional affective responses. A male participant explained that many White people feel
guilty or bad when they learn about White privilege and racism because it is their fault.
Additionally, two female participants reported feelings of helplessness when addressing racial
justice. One of them said, “I see the cycle and I just feel helpless against it cause it’s like I can’t
do anything about it…. It’s something I care about, but I really don’t see where I can’t force
someone not to be racist.”
Behavioral outcomes. In addition to affective responses, participants reported changes in
behaviors since taking the intergroup dialogue on Whiteness. One such behavior was enrolling in
various diversity courses. A number of participants felt that they needed more education after
taking the course and intentionally enrolled in courses about diversity, social justice, and
intergroup facilitating training to continue their journey. For example, one female participant
27
said, “It [the class] prompted me to take a class on diversity this semester, so just to get a little bit
deeper and to get more of a perspective from a different, I guess, group like what their thoughts
are and see what the class is.” In addition to taking additional courses, one female participant in
particular mentioned that she continued her own learning by reading books regarding social
justice and race.
Another behavioral change pertained to participants’ action of intervening during
conversations if their friends or family said something racist. This is related to participants’
reports on their own decreased levels of employing biased stereotyping and language. For
example, one female participant was asked to describe how the class influenced relationships
with people from different social backgrounds and she responded with, “I think that I don’t
prejudge them as I did before and that I just like try and approach them as I’d approach anyone
else like I try to treat everyone equally.”
Discussion
Results from this investigation provide new knowledge regarding college students’
experiences after taking an intergroup dialogue course on Whiteness. For instance, intergroup
dialogue pedagogy in this study was an effective approach to learning about Whiteness and
potentially other social justice-related issues. It was also learned that the racial composition of
dialogues (or social identity diversity in other types of dialogues) is important because it adds
additional diverse and unique viewpoints and increases intergroup contact. Additionally,
intergroup dialogue was shown to have positive outcomes for students.
Generally, participants felt that the racial diversity of the classmates and facilitators
enhanced their class experience. Furthermore, these White participants suggested even more
racial diversity among classmates. The importance of diversity among dialogue participants is
28
consistent with previous intergroup dialogue literature because intergroup dialogue brings
together various participants from different social identity groups (Zuniga et al., 2007), in this
case—Whites and people of color. Additionally, the co-facilitators in this dialogue class
represented both social identity groups as outlined Zuniga and colleagues as well.
In regards to participants’ comments of the co-facilitators, they commented on how the
different experiences of each facilitator and how their facilitation skills enhanced the course.
However, one participant mentioned that she felt that the facilitators came in with assumptions
and that the course was one-sided. According to the literature, it is the goal of the co-facilitators
to foster a dialogue that examines critical thinking about power relations and systemic
inequalities through a critical dialogue approach (Nagda et al., 1999; Zuniga & Nagda, 2001, &
Zuniga et al., 2007). This goal was achieved because facilitators offered different perspectives
while guiding the students and dialogue. Although the one student reported that the course was
one-sided and that the facilitators were biased, the goal of intergroup dialogue was reached
because this particular participant was able to critically think about the course material as
presented by the facilitators, which is encouraged. However, the participant made an astute
observation that the material was one-sided since the materials were from a racial justice
perspective as compared to a White-supremacist view. But it can be argued that because the
dominant perspective is dominated by Whiteness (Neville, Worthington, & Spanierman, 2001),
in order to explore racial inequalities and structures it is necessary to engage in material from a
racial justice standpoint, which is supported by the purpose of intergroup dialogue.
Participants’ perceptions towards the dialogue class pedagogy were strongly supported by
the intergroup literature. Students described how the class allowed for multiple perspectives and
that it was a suitable format for social justice education. Through course activities, readings, and
29
writing assignments, and the dialogue itself, the course achieved the intended goals of intergroup
dialogue—promoting intergroup contact by exploring differences from different perspectives
(Zuniga, 2007). The writing assignments allowed for students to further reflect on course
concepts which allows students’ to be fully engaged in the material. Moreover, the readings
provided another perspective for the students to see and engage with as well.
Reported learning outcomes from taking the dialogue course also were consistent with
both the empirical literature on intergroup dialogue outcomes and with the critical Whiteness
literature. Increased knowledge and increased self-awareness themes were consistent with Nagda
and colleagues (1999) research which found that social work students increased their level of
awareness of inequality and learning of other identity groups. These two themes are also
consistent with the literature on White privilege and White racial identity development. Prior to
the course, participants had greater levels of denial of White privilege and a limited view on
Whiteness, which demonstrates the normalcy, invisibility, and dominance of Whiteness as
described by McIntosh (1988) and Wildman and Davis (2008). This lack of awareness or denial
of White privilege is congruent with the contact status according to Helms’s (1995) White racial
identity development model. Additionally, participants at the contact stage are likely to endorsed
color-blind racial beliefs because of the denial or minimization of race and racism.
Results also suggested that increases in knowledge and self-awareness allowed some of
participants to move from the contact status to the second status, disintegration, which is when
Whites begin developing racial awareness (Helms, 1995). Two students may have entered the
class at the pseudo-independent status where one examines and questions their definition of
Whiteness and reasoning for racism because they reported more advanced knowledge and
awareness of course concepts before the class (Helms, 1995). Another reason why they may have
30
entered at the pseudo-independent status is related to their behavioral outcomes from taking the
class to learn more. After the class, these two showed movement into the next stage,
immersion/emersion where they explored their definition of racism in relation to their life and
may feel uncomfortable about their Whites by their realization of their own privileges (Helms,
1995). Next, they learned how to accept their privileges and to celebrate their Whiteness. More
importantly, they wanted to take the next step of becoming an anti-racist ally. Here, the two
students portrayed initial signs of the last stage, autonomy, where a new White identity that
confronts racism is internalized (Helms, 1995).
With regard to social and relational outcomes, students noted that they had outside
discussions with family and friends and that they experienced changes in pre-existing
relationships after the class. When a student brings up the topic of racism or Whiteness, it was
said that friends wanted to avoid it. Also, another student was questioning her relationship with a
friend due to her friend’s ignorance and her consciously aware perspective of racial issues. These
outcomes are similar to what Goodman (2001) described as a social costs of individuals from a
privileged group. The affective outcomes were anger, White guilt, and feelings of helplessness
which were similar themes from Spanierman and colleagues (2008) study on White responses to
societal racism. According to Spanierman and Heppner (2004) these are emotional costs of
racism to Whites, which are affective responses such as anger, sadness, and guilt.
An additional pattern to consider is the difference between participants’ prior experiences
coming into the dialogue. For example, three participants had a good amount of prior knowledge
before taking this intergroup dialogue course. One White female shared how she grew up in a
racially diverse neighborhood where she was the only White girl in a majority black school. She
also mentioned that her partner is black and added that her family talks about race at home. The
31
male participant similarly commented that he come from a family background who serves the
underprivileged community. He mentioned that he has thought about racism a lot prior to this
class. Last, the other female student mentioned that she has learned a lot about institutional
racism and oppression in her other coursework. These participants mentioned that the class could
have gone deeper. One specifically, explained that it was difficult for her during the course
because people are at all different levels of their racial identity development and understanding
with these issues. However she felt that it was still a worthwhile course because it is a unique
and important topic that is rarely discussed and recognized.
Limitations
Although much has been learned from this study, limitations of the study must be
considered. First, only one-third of the students of the course agreed to participate. Potential
selection bias may have occurred because students were recruited via e-mail. It was unknown
why participants did not respond to the recruitment e-mail. Future research should work with the
Institutional Review Board to build a research component into the course so that the majority of
students participate. Because the final sample included five White females and one White male,
findings might reflect White women’s perspectives more so than that of White men.
Additionally, this study only examined White students’ experiences in the intergroup dialogue.
Future research must also examine students of color and their perspectives on the course.
Although my initial biases and antiracist stance cannot be ignored when examining this
study, I tried my best to let the themes emerged from the data without contamination. When
conducting initial codes, I made sure to be as general and inclusive to the interview, hoping to be
sure that all data and themes were considered. Themes were carefully coded and audited by an
32
associate professor. However, inevitably our biases may have affected the data to some degree
because it is impossible to be completely objective when selecting final themes.
Implications and Future Directions
This research study marks the beginning of our understanding of White college students’
experiences in a 7-week intergroup dialogue course on Whiteness. Findings suggest that an
intergroup dialogue on Whiteness was generally effective in educating and fostering intergroup
relations on the University of Illinois campus. To more effectively achieve an inclusive,
welcoming, and safe environment, campus staff and faculty should consider providing additional
intergroup dialogues or similar opportunities.
Learning, acknowledging, and understanding Whiteness and racism are vital for Whites
because it allows them to partner with their counterparts of color in fighting for racial justice. In
order to achieve this, it is necessary to provide Whites with opportunities to explore Whiteness
and race(ism). Last, it is important for Whites to continue on the life-long journey of
understanding their Whiteness and the realities of racism and potentially ally with people of
color for racial justice.
Future researchers should examine a greater number of intergroup dialogues on
Whiteness to see if themes are consistent among dialogues. Also, interviewing additional
participants will be beneficial as well. Utilizing a different qualitative method of analysis, such
as consensual qualitative research (CQR) analyses (Hill et al., 2005; Hill, Thompson, &
Williams, 1997) may strengthen the results and accuracy of students’ experiences in the dialogue
class. Additionally, using a mixed-methodology to study intergroup dialogues on Whiteness will
add greater quantitative dimensions of the study while maintaining the important nuances that
qualitative research offers.
33
References
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2005). Making excellence inclusive.
Retrieved April 24, 2009, from http://www.aacu.org/inclusive_excellence/index.cfm
Bell, L. A. (2003). Telling tales: What stories can teach us about racism. Race, Ethnicity, and
Education, 6, 3–28.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2001). White supremacy & racism in the post-civil rights era. Boulder, CO:
Lynne Rienner.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2003). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial
inequality in the United States. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield.
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3, 77 – 101.
Carr, L. (1997). Color-blind racism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dessel, A., & Rogge, M. E. (2008). Evaluation of intergroup dialogue: a review of the empirical
literature. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 26, 199 – 238. doi: 10.1002/crq.230
Ely, M., Anzul, M., Friedman, T., Garner, D., & McCormack-Steinmetz, A. (1991). Doing
qualitative research: Circles within circles. London: Falmer Press.
Goodman, D. (2001). Promoting diversity and social justice: educating people from privileged
groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Gurin, P., Dey, E., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and
impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 330 – 366.
Gurin, P., Nagda, B., & Lopez, G. (2004). The benefits of diversity in education for democratic
citizenship. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 17 – 34. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00097.x
34
Gurin, P., Peng, T., Lopez, G., & Nagda, B. (1999). Context, identity and intergroup relations. In
D. Prentice and D. Miller (Eds.), Cultural Divides: Understanding and Overcoming
Group Conflict. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Hardiman, R. (1982). White identity development: A process oriented model for describing the
racial consciousness of White Americans. Dissertation Abstracts International, DAI-A
43/01.
Helms, J. E. (1984). Toward a theoretical explanation of the effects of race on counseling.
Counseling Psychologist, 17, 227–252.
Helms, J. E. (1995). An update of Helms’s White and people of color racial identity models. In J.
G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of
multicultural counseling (pp. 181–198). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hill, C. E., Knox, S., Thompson, B. J., Williams, E. N. Hess, S. A., & Ladany, N. (2005). CQR:
An update. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 196 – 205.
Hill, C. E., Thompson B. J., & Williams, E. N. (1997). A guide to conducting consensual
qualitative research. The Counseling Psychologist, 25, 517 – 572.
Hurtado, S. (2005). The next generation of diversity and intergroup relations. Journal of Social
Issues, 61, 593 – 610. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00422.x
Hurtado, S., Milem, J. F. Clayton-Pederson, A. R., & Allen, W. R. (1998). Enacting diverse
learning environments: Improving the climate for racial ethnic diversity in higher
education. The Review of Higher Education, 21, 279 – 302.
Inclusive Illinois: One Campus, Many Voices. (2010). About Inclusive Illinois. Retrieved March
2, 2010 from http://www.inclusiveillinois.illinois.edu/index.html
35
Jensen, R. (2005). The heart of whiteness: Confronting race, racism, and white privilege. San
Francisco: City Lights.
Kendall, F. (2006). Understanding White Privilege: Creating Pathways to Authentic
Relationships Across Race. New York: Routledge Press.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
McIntosh, P. (1988). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. In V. Cyrus (Ed.),
Experiencing race, class, and gender in the United States (pp. 209 – 213). Mountain
View, CA: Mayfield Publishing.
McKinney & Feagin (2003). Diverse perspectives on doing antiracism: The younger generation.
In A. W. Doane & E. Bonilla-Silva (Eds.), White out (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Miller, J., & Donner, S. (2000). More than just talk: the use of racial dialogues to combat racism.
Social Work with Groups, 23, 31 – 53.
Nagda, B. A., Spearmon, M., Holley, L.C., Harding S., Balassone, M. L. Moise-Swanson, D.,
and De Mello, S. (1999). Intergroup dialogues: an innovative approach to teaching about
diversity and justice in social work programs. Journal of Social Work Education, 35, 433
– 449. doi:
Nagda, R. & Zuniga, X. (2003). Fostering meaningful racial engagement through intergroup
dialogues. Group Process and Intergroup Relations, 6, 111 – 128. doi:
10.1177/1368430203006001015
Neville, H. A. (2009). Rationalizing the racial order: racial color-blindness as a legitimizing
ideology. In T. Koditschek, S. K. Cha-Jua, and H. A. Neville (Eds.). Race struggles (pp.
115-137). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
36
Neville, H. A., Lilly, R. L., Duran, G., Lee, R. M., & Browne, L. (2000). Construction and initial
validation of the color-blind racial attitudes scale (CoBRAS). Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 47, 59–70.
Neville, H. A., Worthington, R. L. & Spanierman, L. B. (2001). Race, power, and multicultural
counseling psychology: Understanding White privilege and color-blind racial attitudes. In
J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of
multicultural counseling (2nd ed., pp. 257–288). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
O’Brien, E. (2003). The political is personal: The influence of white supremacy on white
antiracists’ personal relationships. In A. W. Doane & E. Bonilla-Silva (Eds.), White out
(2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Poteat, V. P., & Spanierman, L. B. (2008). Further validation of the Psychosocial Costs of
Racism to Whites Scale among a sample of employed adults. Counseling Psychologist,
36, 871–894.
Rowe, W., Bennett, S. K., & Atkinson, D. R. (1994). Whiteracial identity models: A critique and
alternate proposal. Counseling Psychologist, 22, 129–146.
Sammons, C. C. & Speight, S. L. (2008). A qualitative investigation of graduate-student changes
associated with multicultural counseling courses. The Counseling Psychologist, 36, 814 –
838.
Scott, D. A., & Robinson, T. L. (2001). White male identity development: The Key model.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 79, 415–421.
Spanierman, L. B., & Heppner, M. J. (2004). Psychosocial Costs of Racism to Whites scale
(PCRW): Construction and initial validation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51,
249–262.
37
Spanierman, L. B., Oh, E., Poteat, V. P., Hund, A. R., McClair, V. L., Beer, A. M., & Clarke, A.
M. (2008). White university students’ responses to societal racism: A qualitative
investigation. The Counseling Psychologist, 36, 839–870.
Spanierman, L. B., Poteat, V. P., Beer, A. M., & Armstrong, P. I. (2006). Psychosocial Costs of
Racism to Whites: Exploring patterns through cluster analysis. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 53, 434–441.
Spanierman, L. B., Poteat, V. P., Wang, Y-F., & Oh, E. (2008). Psychosocial costs of racism to
White counselors: Predicting various dimensions of multicultural counseling competence.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 75–88.
Spanierman, L. B. & Soble. J. R. (2009). Understanding Whiteness: Previous approaches and
possible directions in the study of White racial attitudes and identity (pp. 283 – 299). In J.
G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L.A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of
multicultural counseling (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tatum, B. D. (1992). Talking about race, learning about racism: the application of racial identity
development in the classroom. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 1-24.
Tatum, B. (1997). “Why are all the Black Kids sitting together in the cafeteria?” and other
conversations about race. Basic Books, A member of the Persues Books Group: New
York, NY.
Trevino, J. (2001). Voices of discovery: Intergroup dialogue as Arizona State University. In D.
Schoem & S. Hurtado (Eds.), Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy I School,
College, Community and Workplace. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: Student Affairs. (2009). Welcome to Student
Affairs. Retrieved December 20, 2009 from http://studentaffairs.illinois.edu/
38
Wildman, S. M., & Davis, A. D. (2008). Making systems of privilege visible. In P. S.
Rothenberg (Ed.), White privilege: Essential reading on the other side of racism (3rd ed.).
New York: Worth Publishers.
Zuniga, X., & Nagda, B. A. (2001). Design considerations for intergroup dialogue. In D. Schoem
and S. Hurtado (Eds.), Intergroup dialogue: Deliberative democracy in school, college,
community and workplace (pp. 306 – 327). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Zuniga, X., Nagda, B., Chesler, M., & Cytron-Walker, A. (2007). Intergroup dialogue in higher
education: meaningful learning about social justice. ASHE Higher Education, 32, 1 –
128. doi: 10.1002/aehe.3204
39
Table 1
Students’ Perceptions and Experiences Dialogue Class
Themes, Definitions, and Illustrative Interview Data
Theme
1. Perceptions of
Dialogue course
pedagogy
1.1 Environment
Definition
Comments on class method
and curriculum
Description of classroom
environment
1.2 Peers
Explanation of importance of
peers in the dialogue
1.3 Suitable method
Comments on if the format of
the class was suitable for
social justice education
2. Comments on racial
composition of the
class
2.1 Classmates and
facilitators
2.2 Should be more
Illustrative Interview Data
“It’s hard to get people to divulge
personal information and to see it so
evidently and to see it so I [sic] mean
obviously there were people who
were a little timid but I didn’t see
that very much in the dialogue
something about that atmosphere
was very comfortable to selfdisclosure.”
“I learn through dialogue, that’s
really helpful for me. And I learn
from peers. I think that if we’re
going to be talking about our
experiences, it should be the most
similar experiences possible, and I
think age generation does make you
more similar. So I feel like you can
learn more from the differences in
your own age group and so that’s
really important.”
“I’d say overall, it’s a pretty good
format—like with the readings, and
then just discussing them…”
Commenting on racial
diversity of the class
Specific comments regarding
classmates and the course
facilitators
“Pretty much everyone was just
White. There were two Black girls,
but they had a lot to contribute and
that was cool. They would say what
they thought of White people and
that I guess that is a perspective I
don’t get a lot.”
Suggesting that the class be
“There could have been more like
40
racially diverse
3. Reactions to
facilitators
3.1 Diverse
experiences
3.2. Facilitation
skills
more racially diverse
Commenting on the course
facilitators
Range of experiences
shared/offered by the
facilitators
Facilitation skills evaluation
explored if there were more people
of different races […]”
“They both have very unique
upbringings and brought very
different things to the table and I
don’t know they both have very
informative and insightful
experiences to reflect on especially
[the mixed-race facilitator] and it
was a very good atmosphere they
promoted a good sense of
community and comfort and they
didn’t always agree on things either I
think that’s important. A big part
about race is just agreeing to
disagree and stuff I think I don’t
think either of them were ever
offended and I don’t think they had
an agenda to promote.”
“I think [the White facilitator] and
[the mixed facilitator] really let us
like just our conversations and I
liked that they wouldn’t interrupt the
conversation just because they
needed to get to another part of the
lesson plan. Like it wasn’t like
super-structured, it was just like if
we went for an hour and a half
talking about one topic and it was
just like a constant dialogue, they’re
weren’t gonna like stop us and like,
“Well, we have to move on to this
now.” And I liked that we were
allowed to like continue the
conversation when it ended it ended.
It wasn’t forced ending.”
41
Table 2
Outcomes
Themes, Definitions, and Illustrative Interview Data
Theme
Definition
1. Increased knowledge Increase in awareness, what
was learned, new knowledge
1.1 Understanding
Increase in understanding
of White
White privilege
privilege
2. Increased SelfAwareness
2.1 Awareness of
own privilege
Illustrative Interview Data
“I don’t that anyone should be
labeling themselves…I think it is
more about what you accomplished
in life…not race.”
Learning about self
Realization of how one has
unearned advantages
“I guess that’s one thing I didn’t
really think about before the class,
was me as a White person. I thought
of other peoples experiences as an
ethnic minority but like, me being
white - I never really thought of it,
you know? Yeah it’s, to me it was
the norm I guess, because that’s what
I am, so, I never really thought of
how my experience was different
because I was white…to me it’s
normal.”
2.2. Awareness of
own biases
Realization of one’s own
biases
“You know some stereotypes have
come from my experience and those
are hard to get rid of and for me, I
just have to stop and think why I
have them and how I let them control
my opinions of people. Some
stereotypes from me are really hard
to lose.”
2.3 Awareness of
identity
Learning open one’s identity
and development
“I basically realized I don’t know
myself and I need to learn myself.
And it’s a complete journey. And
that was just stepping my feet in the
water and I’m still learning. I can’t
define myself right now.”
3. Social and
42
Relational Outcomes
3.1 Outside
classroom
Discussing course concepts
outside the classroom
3.2 Changes in
relationships
Changes in pre-existing
relationships
4. Affective Responses
4.1 Anger
“‘Hey come on I don’t wanna go
through this or this is ridiculous or
why are you talking about this.’”
“It becomes really difficult to be able
to be like, ‘I’m your best friend but
you’re so racially ignorant and it’s so
difficult for me to have a
conversation with you.’”
Anger as an emotional
response in the class
“I guess angry. I was angry more
than anything. It just feels so unfair,
so unjust to see the ways these
policies were created so so long ago
and yet their impacts are still being
felt today. And certain things are not
changing and probably won’t change
for a while. And it’s all geared
around like White privilege and
that’s the dominate culture and what
that means…and yeah, so a lot of
anger, a lot of embarrassment I
would say just that we had this
history in this country of keeping
other people down because they’re
not White or they’re not White
enough. “
4.2 Hostility
Hostile feelings as a response
4.3 White guilt
Feeling guilty for being White
4.5 Helplessness
Feelings of helplessness
“I think after the class, like I feel a
lot less hostility towards myself
being White…”
“I think you start off with White guilt
you start thinking you know I, you
feel guilty for being White.”
“[…] I see the cycle and I just feel
helpless against it ‘cause it’s like I
can’t do anything about it. […] It’s
something I care about, but I really
don’t see where I can’t force
someone not to be racist.”
5. Behavioral Outcomes
5.1 Continuing
Taking another course or
Education
readings books
“It [the class] prompted me to take a
class on diversity this semester, so
just to get a little bit deeper and to
get more of a perspective from a
different, I guess, group like what
43
5.2 Decreased levels
of biased
stereotyping and
biased language
Less use of biased words an
thoughts
their thoughts are and see what the
class is.”
“I think that I don’t prejudge them as
I did before and that I just like try
and approach them as I’d approach
anyone else like I try to treat
everyone equally.”
44
Appendix A
Intergroup Dialogue Participant Interview Protocol – Interview Questions
1) What is your major field of study? Or how has your college experience been (if freshman?
How is your semester going? (Warm-up question)
2) How did you hear about the Intergroup Dialogue on Whiteness? What prompted you to sign
up for it?
3) Did you have any expectations prior to going to the first day of the dialogue? If so, what
were they?
4) Could you tell me a little bit about what you learned in the course? What do you remember?
5) What did you learn about yourself?
6) Before this course, had you thought much about race and your own racial identity? And
racism? What about after?
7) What were your thoughts of racism before this class? How about after the class? Does racism
still exist? If so, how and why?
8) Before this course, what did Whiteness mean to you (if anything)? What about after?
9) Before this course, what did White privilege mean to you (if anything)? What about after?
10) What are your thoughts of the intergroup dialogue format of the class? What did you learn?
11) Was this format helpful for this course?
12) In your opinion, what was the best part of this class?
13) In your opinion, what was the worst part of this class?
14) Please comment on the racial backgrounds of students in your class. How did this influence
the learning environment, what you learned, or how you participated in class?
45
15) Did the facilitators help your learning experience? What were some of the things that were
helpful? What was unhelpful? (Have participant speak about both facilitators.)
16) Are there any other things about the course that were helpful to your learning experience (if
any)? Anything else that hindered your learning?
17) How has this class influenced how you relate to people who are from different social
backgrounds from you on campus?
18) How has this class influenced how you relate to people who are from similar social
backgrounds from you on campus?
19) Is there anything that you feel that I missed?