INTRODUCTION: OVERVIEW
The Advisory Board aimed to explore race, racism, and potential racial reconciliation in America, revealing that racism persists and many citizens struggle with their biases (Bingham et al., 2002) Despite ongoing issues, open dialogues about diversity have gained support as a means to address racism (Dessel et al., 2006) Understanding the willingness of European-American individuals to engage in these discussions, along with the factors influencing this willingness, is crucial for advancing applied research This knowledge could help develop effective, evidence-based strategies to foster meaningful conversations between minority and majority groups.
Racism and racial inequality are deeply entrenched in U.S society, highlighted by the "Black Lives Matter" movement, which emerged in response to the 2012 shooting of Trayvon Martin and has since addressed ongoing racial injustices in policing African Americans, who represent only 13% of the U.S population, account for nearly 40% of the prison population and 34% of high school dropouts The 2015 National Assessment of Educational Progress revealed significant disparities in school demographics, with European-American students attending schools that are only 9% African-American, while African-American students are in schools that are 48% African-American This unofficial segregation is further exacerbated by funding disparities; for instance, Chicago's public schools, predominantly serving African-American and Latino students, spend an average of $8,482 per student, compared to $17,291 in the nearby predominantly European-American Highland Park district Such stark differences in educational resources contribute to the widening achievement gap between students of color and their European-American counterparts.
Despite ongoing debates about the existence of racism in society, the harmful impacts of perceived racism are undeniable Studies indicate that racial microaggressions can adversely affect both the physical and mental well-being of individuals, leading to decreased work productivity and cognitive function (Sue et al., 2009) The repercussions of microaggressions extend beyond personal health, highlighting the urgent need to address these issues.
European-American people as well, such as lowering empathic ability, diming perceptual awareness, maintaining false illusions and lessening compassion for others (Sue et al, 2009)
Efforts to address racism and its effects
Leaders across the U.S have implemented various strategies to combat racism, ranging from national legislation to local initiatives One effective approach at the personal level is fostering open dialogue about race A report from President Clinton’s Executive Order highlights that dialogue is a crucial tool for bridging the gap between individuals of different races.
In 1998, a key objective was to initiate a nationwide dialogue that would allow individuals to openly discuss the impact of racial issues on their lives and the nation, potentially hindering progress in various areas The report emphasized that while dialogue is not the sole method to tackle racial tensions, it remains one of the most effective means for fostering common ground and enhancing understanding among diverse racial groups.
The report highlights the key distinction between dialogue and debate, emphasizing that debate aims to persuade others to adopt a specific viewpoint, while dialogue focuses on exchanging ideas and discovering common ground (PIoR, 1998, p 23) The effectiveness of dialogue is assessed by participants' ability to cultivate tolerance for diverse perspectives and achieve a shared understanding of the issue (PIoR, p 24) Additionally, further definitions have been proposed regarding the ideal characteristics and essential factors that should shape these dialogues.
In 2005, the Ford Foundation launched the “Difficult Dialogue” initiative, allocating $2.5 million in grants to promote scholarship and civil discourse on challenging political, religious, racial, and cultural issues in U.S undergraduate education This initiative has led to the establishment of various Difficult Dialogue programs across campuses nationwide, characterized by diverse faculty involvement and a range of discussion formats Additionally, the importance of dialogue has extended into the workplace, with 66% of U.S employers implementing diversity training programs by 2005.
Various research teams have initiated efforts to establish a structured format for dialogues, with the "Inter-Group Dialogue" (IGD) program being a notable example This program involves a co-facilitated, face-to-face small group intervention designed to unite individuals from social identity groups that have experienced historical tension or conflict (Miles & Kivlighan).
The intergroup contact hypothesis, proposed by Allport in 1954, serves as a foundational theory for the program, suggesting that intergroup contact can diminish prejudice when participants engage on equal footing and pursue shared objectives (Miles & Kivlighan, 2012).
An effective intergroup dialogue group should ideally consist of an equal number of participants from both oppressed and privileged social identity groups, co-facilitated by representatives from each group (Muller, 2015) Typically, these groups include 8-10 members and convene over a period of 7-12 weeks (Muller, 2015) The process follows a "four-stage model," which encompasses: 1) forming and building relationships, 2) exploring differences and commonalities, 3) discussing contentious issues, and 4) planning actions and building alliances (Muller, 2015).
Effective racial dialogue, often referred to as "race talk," encompasses conversations about race, racism, 'whiteness,' and White privilege (Sue, 2013) These discussions can occur anywhere, but are particularly relevant in university classrooms, especially when triggered by microaggressions The outcomes of such dialogues are unpredictable; they can either exacerbate racial tensions or help reduce prejudiced views if managed properly Research by Sue et al (2009) identifies key strategies for facilitating productive discussions, including acknowledging emotions, sharing personal experiences, actively engaging participants, and fostering a safe environment for open dialogue.
Researchers are increasingly assessing the outcomes of group interventions, yet the exploration of dialogue remains ahead of the research on these programs (Dessel & Rogge, 2008) A notable study by Gurin, Nagda, and Zuniga (2013) involved a collaborative effort across nine universities to evaluate intergroup dialogue (IGD) programs focused on race/ethnicity and gender Utilizing an experimental design, the study compared a treatment group of students engaged in IGD programs with a control group on a waitlist Findings revealed that participants in both race/ethnicity and gender dialogues exhibited significant increases in awareness and understanding of racial and gender inequalities, as well as their societal causes, compared to the control group and students in social science classes Additionally, these students demonstrated heightened motivation to bridge differences across racial and gender lines and showed greater empathy (Gurin et al., 2013) While this study is a key empirical examination of the IGD program with a control group, it has limitations, including a sample of self-selecting, motivated students, which necessitates cautious interpretation of the results and limits generalization to the broader population The use of dialogues to foster proactive discussions on race is expanding, and research efforts are beginning to fill gaps in the literature, though much work remains.
Educators, politicians, and social scientists widely agree that dialogues are an effective means of fostering racial understanding and reducing tensions between different racial groups Current research supports this perspective, emphasizing that dialogue remains a crucial approach to addressing racial issues in our society.
Understanding and increasing participation in racial dialogues
To enhance participation in effective racial dialogues, leaders should seize opportunities when diverse individuals are gathered, such as in classrooms where spontaneous "race talks" can occur In these settings, all students become participants or observers, but they still have the option to engage or remain silent Therefore, more impactful discussions are likely to arise in voluntary groups specifically designed for racial dialogues, as those who choose to participate may differ significantly from those who do not.
Many individuals in interracial settings tend to shy away from intense and powerful emotional discussions, often preferring to minimize their significance This reluctance suggests that a significant portion of the population may not voluntarily participate in such conversations Consequently, a crucial research question arises: how can we encourage more people to engage willingly in these important discussions?
LITERATURE REVIEW
Statistics reveal that schools with the highest percentages of African-American students experience the lowest achievement levels (National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2015) Additionally, African American students account for 34% of all high school dropouts (Brown & Lent, 2008) The alarming police shootings of unarmed men of color highlight a systemic racial issue, drawing significant public attention through subsequent riots and media coverage, surpassing the impact of annual statistical reports.
Despite the landmark decision of Brown v Board of Education, social dynamics continue to perpetuate inequality in subtle and pervasive ways Today's racial inequality manifests differently than in the past; while racial segregation is illegal and overt racism is stigmatized, the public's professed values have become increasingly egalitarian over the decades (Forman & Lewis, 2015) This modern form of inequality is more insidious and challenging to address, eluding the attention of researchers and educators for years.
Nearly two decades ago, President Clinton established a Race Advisory Board through an Executive Order to explore issues of race, racism, and the potential for racial reconciliation in the United States The board's report highlighted dialogue as a crucial tool for fostering connections between diverse racial and ethnic groups, emphasizing its role in discovering common ground and enhancing mutual understanding among individuals of varying backgrounds.
1998, p 23) Efforts to address President Clinton’s call to dialogue began to spring up around the country in the ensuing years
One of the most significant of those efforts was The Ford Foundation’s initiative,
Since its inception in 2005, the "Difficult Dialogues" initiative has received $2.5 million in grants from the Ford Foundation to promote scholarship and civil discourse on challenging political, religious, racial, and cultural issues in U.S undergraduate education The program invites colleges and universities nationwide to propose academic programs that foster constructive discussions among students on conflicting viewpoints.
The "Inter-Group Dialogue" (IGD) program has been utilized by community groups and educational institutions for over two decades to facilitate challenging conversations (Dessel, Rogge & Garlington, 2006) This framework encourages dialogue between individuals from conflicting social-identity groups, promoting understanding and collaboration (Miles & Kivlighan, 2012) According to Dessel, Woodford, and Warren (2011), IGD effectively brings together equal numbers of participants from both the marginalized and privileged groups, guided by trained facilitators representing each identity The program has successfully addressed various social identity issues, including race, ethnic relations, and sexual orientation, and has engaged diverse populations such as adolescents, college students, and community members (Ahmad et al., 2015; Dessel, 2010; Aldana et al., 2012).
The IGD program consists of four key stages that participants navigate during weekly meetings over a period of 7 to 12 weeks These stages are: 1) forming and establishing relationships within the group, 2) examining both differences and shared experiences, 3) engaging in discussions about pressing issues, and 4) developing action plans and fostering alliances.
Research on the effectiveness of the Intergroup Dialogue (IGD) format has yielded promising findings A collaborative study, the Multi-University Intergroup Dialogue Research Project (MIGR), involving nine universities and 1,463 students, demonstrated significant improvements in intergroup understanding, relationships, and collaboration among participants compared to those in a wait-list group The study revealed that students engaged in IGD showed increased motivation to bridge racial and gender differences, along with heightened empathy and a sense of responsibility Effect sizes ranged from small to moderate, with averages of 19 for intergroup understanding, 41 for intergroup relationships, and 24 for intergroup action, indicating meaningful impacts on students' awareness of structural inequalities.
This study distinguishes itself from previous research on Intergroup Dialogue (IGD) groups due to its robust experimental design and large sample size It included two comparison groups: a wait-list group and a group of students enrolled in social studies classes focused on race, ethnicity, and gender This design enabled researchers to assess the impact of didactic instruction on social inequality against the experiential dialogue approach of the IGD program (Gurin et al 2013) Participants were students who volunteered for the IGD program and were randomly assigned to either the IGD group or a control group The nine universities involved ensured consistency in program design, recruitment, and selection processes, employing stratified random assignment to enhance external validity (Alimo, 2012) Data collection involved pre and post-test surveys, a one-year follow-up survey, and qualitative interviews.
The MIGR study, while robust in several aspects, has notable limitations A key issue is the reliance on a self-selecting participant pool, which limits the generalizability of the findings to the broader public and does not account for individuals who may not be motivated to engage in racial dialogues Additionally, the study lacked random assignment for comparison groups in social science classes focused on gender or racial content Furthermore, the research did not control for which specific elements of the intervention were most effective, as the IGD program comprised a comprehensive curriculum with multiple stages, structured activities, and various readings, making it unclear which components contributed to the observed outcomes (Gurin et al., 2013).
Dessel and Rogge (2008) reviewed literature on Intergroup Dialogue (IGD) studies from 1997 to 2006, identifying twenty-three relevant studies Most of these studies employed quasi-experimental or pre-experimental designs, lacking random assignment and often featuring small sample sizes and limited experimental control While IGD shows potential for addressing group conflict, significant gaps in the literature remain, necessitating further research before drawing definitive conclusions.
Although planned programs to encourage effective inter-group dialogue are worthwhile and important, most of the conversations that people have about race are done informally
Researchers have investigated informal racial dialogue, known as "race talk," in university classrooms According to Sue (2013), "race talk" encompasses conversations about race, racism, "whiteness," and White privilege His qualitative studies have significantly contributed to understanding the dynamics of these discussions.
Race discussions in classrooms are often sparked by unintentional microaggressions from European-American students Common themes identified by students of color include implications that they lack intelligence, do not belong in the country, are presumed criminals, or that race is not a significant issue in the United States Reactions from minority students to these microaggressions range from questioning the value of speaking up to experiencing strong emotional responses such as feeling incensed, anxious, and exhausted.
In 2009, research revealed distinct themes in the experiences of European-American students during challenging dialogues Unlike students of color, who could pinpoint specific classroom discussions related to race or microaggressions, European-American counseling trainees struggled to connect their thoughts and experiences of race to particular instances.
European-American participants, rather, spoke in global terms about their experiences (Sue et al.,
In 2010, several global themes emerged regarding race discussions, including the denial of whiteness or white privilege, the concept of colorblindness, and the fear of being perceived as racist when engaging in conversations about race Additionally, some individuals felt they lacked the right to participate in these dialogues due to their own absence of personal experiences with racism (Sue et al., 2010).
A study by Sue, Torino et al (2009) explored the challenges faced by European-American faculty during difficult dialogues on race, revealing two primary themes: a fear of losing control and heightened emotional tension in the classroom Faculty noted that discussions on race often triggered anxiety, anger, and defensiveness among students, with some European-American students visibly distressed, even crying.