ÀË»¨Ö±²¥

What is Intergroup Dialogue (IGD)? 
Intergroup dialogue (IGD) is a structured and facilitated process that brings together individuals from different social backgrounds to engage in open and honest conversations about viewpoints, social issues and their impacts and intergroup relations. The primary goal of intergroup dialogue is to foster understanding, empathy, and collaboration across differences while addressing social issues and their impacts on others. 

Key Elements of intergroup dialogue include: 

1. Active Listening: Participants are encouraged to actively listen to each other's perspectives without judgment or interruption, fostering empathy and understanding. 
    
2. Reflection and Self-awareness: IGD encourages participants to reflect on their own viewpoints and backgrounds, promoting self-awareness and personal growth.
    
3. Critical Analysis: Participants engage in critical analysis of social issues, exploring the root causes of inequality and misalignment within their communities and society at-large.
    
4. Understanding Power: Critical to effective IGD is making explicit perceptions and experiences of power. Power exists in social structures (i.e., schools, laws, media) and in relationships (e.g., teacher-student, peer-peer, parent-child, mentor-mentee), and meaningful change occurs as we understand the different levels at which power functions–intra-personally, interpersonally, and institutionally.
5. Collaborative Problem-solving: IGD emphasizes collaborative problem-solving and action-oriented dialogue, empowering participants to work together towards positive social change.
6. Building Relationships Across Differences: By engaging in dialogue with individuals from different backgrounds and viewpoints, participants develop meaningful relationships, build trust, bridge divides, and build participants’ capacities for collective action.

Why Promote and Facilitate Intergroup Dialogues?

Allport (1954) was one of the first Western academic scholars to propose intergroup contact as an antidote to prejudicial and discriminatory behavior between groups. Since his initial writing, the efficacy and usefulness of intergroup contact (under some key conditions that need to be met) as a way to reduce prejudice and conflict has been studied and supported in work with both children and adults around various topics of difference (see Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; Al Ramiah & Hewstone, 2013).

Scholars and educational theorists have also written about and studied IGD as a way to increase individuals’ awareness and desire to act to remedy social justice issues negatively impacting them or others (e.g., Zuniga, 2007). The positive effects of IGD, if facilitated well, have been found to include greater perspective taking, more positive views of conflict and conflict resolution, greater hope for intergroup relations, greater intergroup friendships, and greater inclination to engage in action to remedy social issues (Dessel & Rogge, 2008). ÀË»¨Ö±²¥ever, if IGD and/or related social discussions are facilitated with poor understanding of facilitation principles, individuals may report feeling more harm than if they had not entered into dialogue at all and/or further division and marginalization might occur (Sue et al., 2009).

Through our work at the Hub, we hope to improve and enhance intergroup dialogue participation and facilitation skills within ÀË»¨Ö±²¥ and beyond, that all may benefit from the many positives that intergroup dialogue methods have to offer in the classroom and beyond.

References
Allport, G. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley

Al Ramiah, A., & Hewstone, M. (2013). Intergroup contact as a tool for reducing, resolving, and preventing intergroup conflict: Evidence, limitations, and potential. American Psychologist, 68(7), 527–542. 

Dessel, A., & Rogge, M. E. (2008). Evaluation of intergroup dialogue: A review of the empirical literature. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 26(2), 199–238. 

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. 

Sue, D. W., Lin, A. I., Torino, G. C., Capodilupo, C. M., & Rivera, D. P. (2009). Racial microaggressions and difficult dialogues on race in the classroom. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15(2), 183–190. 

Zuniga, X. Nagda, B. Chesler, M. and Cytron-Walker, A. (2007). Intergroup Dialogue in Higher Education: Meaningful Learning ÀË»¨Ö±²¥ Social Justice. ASHE Higher Education Report, 32(4).