WHAT IS THE INTERGROUP DIALOGUE COURSE?
This handout briefly describes the academic course in Intergroup Dialogue offered at The
University of Michigan and a number of other universities and colleges. (Some of these other institutions
have revised or adapted the Michigan Model because of their different local needs, and we are eager to
assist in such adaptations). The dialogue course, described here, is only one of the offerings of The
Program on Intergroup Relations (IGR) at Michigan. IGR also teaches other, more traditional courses, and
it also offers a wide array of co-curricular programs and off-campus community involvements.
Additional information about Intergroup Dialogue and other IGR programs can be found at www.igr.umich.edu. Or,
contact Charles Behling at [email protected] or Monita Thompson at [email protected]
1. Intergroup Dialogues are carefully structured face-to-face meetings between members of at least
two social groups. For example, dialogues might be between:
o
o
o
o
o
Persons of different genders
People of color and white people
LGBQ persons and
heterosexuals
Jews, Christians, and Muslims
Asian Americans of different
ethnicities
o
o
o
o
o
Persons of different socioeconomic
classes
Native Americans and other US citizens
Recent immigrants and older immigrants
Persons with disabilities and able-bodied
persons
Or many other groups!
2. The groups are co-facilitated by at least two persons, from different groups from the relevant
social identities. Facilitators have been well trained in advance in the specific techniques of
dialogue.
o Facilitators must be experienced in ongoing processes of exploring their own attitudes and
behaviors regarding diversity and justice.
o Training should enable them to create safe environments where participants can discuss
difficult topics with honesty.
o They should know how to share power and create democratic, non-authoritarian
environments.
o They should be trained in expert listening skills and in empathy skills.
3. The number of participants is typically 14-16 persons – small enough to encourage/permit each
participant to have a voice and be heard; large enough to access diversity within and between
groups.
4. The participants commit in advance to participate in dialogue over a sustained period of time—
ideally, weekly meetings for a full semester (although dialogues of 4-5 meetings have also been
conducted).
5. Dialogues may be conducted in academic settlings like high schools and universities, and they
can also occur in other settings: churches, community centers, businesses, clubs, homes, etc.
GOALS AND METHODS
1. The Intergroup Dialogue course is a central part of the offerings of The Program on Intergroup
Relations at Michigan. The overarching mission of the Program is “education for social justice.”
It is hoped that the Intergroup Dialogue course will contribute to this goal by helping participants
o increase their understanding of each other
o use this understanding to honestly and deeply explore differences in privilege and
discrimination between groups
o
to ask themselves what next steps, if any, they wish to take to promote equality.
2. Research has demonstrated that “education for social justice” is most effective when it includes
both factual, cognitive learning and personal, experiential, emotional learning.
o Cognitive Learning: Participants in dialogue are supplied with readings and/or other
objective sources of information about the groups’ histories, demographic characteristics,
differences in economic and social outcomes, current issues, etc.
o Emotional Learning: Crucially, the dialogue sessions emphasize activities and exercises
that are carefully constructed to provide participants with experiences relevant to the
issues raised by each stage of dialogue. Dialogue, therefore, becomes a process of
emotional and personal discovery, not merely intellectual and verbal discussion.
3. The dialogue sessions are carefully structured to move in order through four stages:
o Learning the technique of communication called “dialogue” (which is different from
“debate” or “discussion”). Developing group norms around this technique.
o Exploring the impact of group identity: commonalities and differences in personal
experience, between and within groups. Included are differences in power and privilege
between groups.
o “Hot Topics:” Dialogue about controversial issues regarding group equity and
experience. Learning to stay in “dialogue mode,” even when we disagree with each
other. Learning not to avoid conflict, and learning how to use it constructively.
o Next Steps. For participants who wish to act on their learnings, what are effective ways to
ally with each other to promote diverse and just communities?
• A detailed description of the Four Stages is provided at the end of this handout.
SOME IMPORTANT ASSUMPTIONS
1. The Michigan Model of Intergroup Dialogue, as developed by Ximena Zuniga, Todd Sevig,
Ratnesh Nagda, Mark Chesler, David Schoem, Pat Gurin, and others, is influenced by at least
three lines of research and data.
o
Sociological theories of conflict. The assumption that conflict between social groups is
predictable, should not be repressed, but should be expressed constructively. The belief
that constructive processing of conflict can lead to learning, to empowerment of
marginalized groups, and to increased social justice. The assumption that conflict
avoidance often serves to perpetuate the status quo regarding social privilege and
disadvantage.
o
Contact theory within psychology. Evidence that contact between groups can lead to
decreased prejudice and stereotyping, but ONLY if conditions of “good contact” are met,
which include superordinate goals, alternatives to normative roles and power distributions,
sustained interaction that embraces issues of group difference, etc.
o
Psychological theories of “modern/aversive/symbolic” –isms.
 Survey research suggests a significant improvement in attitudes about diversity
in the US since the Civil Rights Movement (and other movements for justice).
Most Americans now advocate justice and equity between groups. “Old
fashioned bigotry,” based on overt prejudice or explicit hatred of other groups,
seems significantly reduced in contemporary society.

However, despite these attitude changes, outcomes for various identity groups
have not achieved equality. “Better” attitudes have not yet produced equality in
practice and behavior.

Why?
a. One reason, of course, is the lingering effect of institutional and cultural
–isms.
In addition, contemporary psychologists (eg, Dovidio and Gaertner) argue
that there exists a new form of discrimination (“modern/aversive/symbolic”
discrimination).
 Persons with egalitarian attitudes, who consider themselves
unprejudiced, nevertheless have other characteristics (called
“aversions”) that can produce discrimination: for example, most
persons have learned stereotypes of other groups; most have
anxieties about interacting with unfamiliar groups; most are
motivated partly by self interest and by preference for their own
group; most are reluctant to challenge their own areas of
privilege; etc.
 Because the “modern –ist” does not “approve” of these aversions,
he/she is likely to deny being influenced by them, and to push
them out of conscious awareness. Thus, one’s behavior
becomes a compromise between conscious egalitarian values
and less-conscious aversions. We can act in subtle, covert
discriminatory ways even while honestly believing that we are
“doing nothing wrong.”
2. What this means for dialogue pedagogy:
o
Aversions and other emotional factors must be uncovered and examined, along with
conscious cognitive values, beliefs, and knowledge.
a. Such a focus empowers us to explore obstacles that block us from acting
effectively on our egalitarian values.
b. This aspect of learning is most likely to be achieved by the portion of each
dialogue meeting that involves activities and exercises, and sharing of personal
experiences.
c. We believe that education for justice must focus on well-meaning, enlightened
people, not just “old-fashioned bigots.“ That is, WE ourselves are people who
need to learn and grow, and there is no shame in that. Moreover, the education
that we and our students need is experiential, not merely cognitive, and the
“experiential education” must be of a particular type: structured, facilitated and
sustained.
For more information, including a bibliography of research and publications about the
effectiveness of dialogue, please go to www.igr.umich.edu
THE FOUR-STAGE MODEL OF INTERGROUP DIALOGUE
STAGE 1
Group Beginnings:
Forming and Building
Relationships

Clarify the meaning of
“dialogue” and other 
forms of
communication. 
Practicing being in “dialogue mode” of communication. Emphasis on
listening, paraphrasing, giving and receiving feedback. Honesty about
disagreements, without judgments about individuals
Group-building activities; exploring goals and expectations
Exploring personal and social identities
Establish the
foundations for honest
and meaningful
dialogue.
STAGE 2
Exploring Differences
and Commonalities of
Experience
Increase awareness
of multiple social
group memberships
and dynamics of
inequalities.

Explore meaning of key terms such as prejudice, discrimination, and
oppression and their impact on participants’ lived experiences

Encourage listening and perspective taking of experiences and perceptions
different from one’s own
Exercises relating to socialization. Exercises related to privilege and
oppression
Identity-based discussions to encourage introspection and deeper dialogue


Promote understanding
of the systemic basis of
group differences in
perceptions and
experiences.
STAGE 3
Exploring and
Discussing Hot
Topics
Encourage analysis
of systems of
privilege, power,
and oppression.

Explore differences and similarities of perceptions/experiences of
controversial issues across and in social identity groups

Practice how to process conflict in ways that are both honest and
constructive

Explore some of the
roots of conflicting
perceptions and 
experiences (historical,
cultural, institutional, 
interpersonal).
STAGE 4
Action Planning and
Alliance Building
Next Steps for
participants who wish to
move from dialogue to
action.
Continued practice of dialogic listening, understanding, respect for
differences – even when there is conflict
Encourage informed/meaningful dialogue and inquiry
Probe for deeper levels of thinking, feeling, and responding.

Explore ways to continue learning about diversity and democracy

What constitutes effective action and allying across social groups?
THE IMPACT OF INTERGROUP DIALOGUE:
A Three-Year, Multiversity Study of the Outcomes of Dialogue Courses
A three-year multi-university field experiment, which examined the effects of intergroup dialogue
pedagogy at nine universities, is summarized in Gurin, Nagda, and Zuniga, Dialogue Across
Difference: Practice, Theory and Research on Intergroup Dialogue (2013, Russell Sage
Foundation). The focus of the study was on intergroup dialogue pedagogy developed by The Program
on Intergroup Relations at University of Michigan (www.igr.umich.edu).
The Michigan model of intergroup dialogue attempts to increase students' understanding of groupbased inequalities, especially their understanding of institutional and policy sources of those inequalities.
It is designed to increase students’ awareness and understanding of social identities. Importantly, it
attempts to increase students’ positive intergroup relationships, especially their motivation to bridge
differences, their positive relationships with people from backgrounds different from their own, their
intergroup empathy, and their intergroup collaboration and action.
The Multiversity Research Project demonstrated effects on all of these predicted
outcomes. Students taking a race or gender dialogue increased on the measures of these outcomes
significantly more than students in control groups. (Note that students in the multiversity project were
randomly assigned to dialogue or control groups, drawn from a pool of persons all of whom had applied to
enroll in dialogues. Differences at the end of the term when the dialogue courses were offered, as well as
differences a year later, thus can be reasonably attributed to the course itself.)
The study found significantly greater change among the dialogue course participants, compared to
the control group students, on twenty of twenty-four multi-item measures of intergroup understanding,
cognitive involvement, positive emotions in intergroup situations, positive intergroup relationships, and
both frequency of intergroup actions and confidence in being able to carry out such actions. It also found
nearly all of these effects in both gender and race/ethnicity dialogues and both for students from privileged
and less privileged racial/ethnic (and gender) backgrounds.
Moreover, the immediate effects of intergroup dialogue were still evident a year after the courses
ended.
A bibliography of publications about the Multiversity Project, and about other intergroup dialogue research
may be found at http://igr.umich.edu/respub/publications
AUTHORSHIP/COPYRIGHT
All materials remain property of The Program on Intergroup Relations at The University of Michigan,
1214 S. University Ave, Ann Arbor, MI 48104-2592. 734-936-1875. www.igr.umich.edu.
Materials may only be used WITH PERMISSION and proper citation of their source.