Dialogue
Groups
A
many campuses have been experimenting with the
use of dialogue groups. Due to their training, mediators
are often asked to help facilitate these. On some campuses,
groups are used during times of crisis or as a short-term
experiment and on others as an ongoing part of life in
their community. One of the best examples of the latter
approach is the Program
on Intergroup Relations, Conflict and Community (IGRCC)
at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Peer-facilitated
meetings between students from different social identity
groups are held each semester focusing around a particular
theme or issue. Participants, numbering from ten to sixteen,
meet weekly in a small-group, semi-structured discussion
format. Readings and experientially based activities are
incorporated to encourage dialogue and discussion of pertinent
issues. Program facilitators define the groups by ethnicity,
race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, ability, class,
age and other characteristics, depending upon the chosen
focus of the dialogue. IGRCC trains their student peer
facilitators in methods of dialogue and facilitation by
means of an intensive training course. They are also enrolled
in a three-credit practicum/supervision course during
the semester they lead dialogues.
Modified
Mediation Models
The
"traditional" mediation model as commonly practiced
focuses on avoidance of blame, limits discussions of the
past, limits participation to those directly involved
in the immediate conflict, and emphasizes settlement of
issues, all of which can be problematic when dealing with
racism and prejudice. Mediation
program developers have worked to modify their models
to increase their utility in cases involving racism, prejudice
and intolerance. Often this means changing the focus toward
increased understanding rather than a formal and final
settlement, and often changing the name of their program
to something other than mediation such as Public
Conversations, New Community Meetings, Community
Dialogues, etc. The models may share characteristics
of family group conferencing and victim offender reconciliation
programs that are growing in popularity in criminal justice
circles, or some of the characteristics of dialogue groups
and family therapy discourse models.
Creative
Controversy in the Classroom
One
well-developed classroom approach to developing skill
dealing with diverse points of view is known as Academic
or Creative Controversy. The model, developed by social
psychologists David and Roger Johnson, is particularly
effective when used as part of a broader cooperative learning
classroom philosophy. The process engages students by
taking controversial subjects and using them as the focal
point for the development of critical thinking, complex
reasoning, and problem solving skills. The basic format
requires members of a group to (a) research and prepare
different positions, (b) make a persuasive presentation
of their researched position, (c) refute the opposing
position while rebutting attacks on their own position,
(d) view the issue from a variety of perspectives (i.e.,
reverse perspectives), and (e) synthesize/integrate the
opposing positions into one mutually agreed upon position.
In addition to providing faculty with a tool for teaching
controversial subjects, research suggests that structuring
controversy into lessons can result in greater motivation
to learn, higher achievement, greater retention, more
frequent higher-level reasoning, more creative thinking
and problem-solving, and more constructive social and
cognitive development.
Group
Self-Assessment and Dialogue Tools
In
addition to projects focusing on potential conflicts between
groups, sometimes mediation program staff are asked to
assist groups that are struggling with internal divisions.
While formal mediation may at times apply, especially
if a small number of identifiable individuals are at the
center of the controversy, many times the entire group
is affected by the dispute. Group members often develop
strong feelings that can lead to problems or polarization
within the group if they are not dealt with. Fortunately,
many different exercises have been developed that can
be used by trained group leaders to help examine and address
divisions within groups. These kind of tools are designed
to enable people to talk in a large or small group session
when anxiety is high, with the focus being on public disclosure
of information about differences within the group in a
tightly structured format. Useful methods include:
Human
Spectrums: Spectrums provide a group with information
about its members and its overall composition. That information
can include attitudes, preferences, or positions on a
topic a group is considering. The facilitator describes
the opposite ends of a spectrum. The group members' task
is then to arrange themselves in the appropriate order.
People stand and place themselves somewhere on the Spectrum.
Fishbowls
or Samoan Circles: Participants gather in two concentric
circles -- an inner circle with a table (optional) and
four chairs, and an outer circle, with ample walking and
aisle space. Everyone begins in the outer circle. The
issue is presented, and discussion begins. Those most
interested take chairs in the inner circle. Those less
interested stay in the outer circle. All are able to move
in or out of the center as the discussion flows or topics
change. Each speaker makes a comment or asks a question.
Speakers are not restricted in what they say, but they
must sit in the inner circle. Someone wishing to speak
stands behind a chair; this signals those already in the
circle to relinquish their chairs. No outside conversations
are allowed. Comments are often recorded. Votes of opinions
held by non-speakers may be taken at the end, if desired.
To close a meeting, empty seats are taken away one by
one until there are no more chairs.
Interviews:
Interview one to three individuals from each perspective
in the presence of the entire group, followed by open
discussion.
Role-Reversal
Interviews: Each interviewed person (similar to above)
is asked to pretend that they are a person with the opposite
view.
Role-Reversal
Presentations: Someone from each side is asked to
spend time with someone from the other side, and then
present their point of view to the group, allowing for
corrections or additions from the interviewee.
